>
> > b) how did you do this without a GPL violation? Since you're restricting
> >redistribution (not your own fault, obviously), and since you've
>
> They aren't restricting it - the US government are. You can redistribute
> it as you see fit. You can go to court and fight first amendment a
> b) how did you do this without a GPL violation? Since you're restricting
>redistribution (not your own fault, obviously), and since you've
They aren't restricting it - the US government are. You can redistribute
it as you see fit. You can go to court and fight first amendment and the like.
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Matt Wilson wrote:
> So now, for the good news. Beginning with Red Hat Linux 6.1, all our
> packages are GPG signed. Red Hat Linux purchased in the US includes
> GPG, mutt with GPG hooks, a GUI frontend to GPG (called gpgp), and
> the 128 bit crypto version of Netscape Commun
John Summerfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > So now, for the good news. Beginning with Red Hat Linux 6.1, all our
> > packages are GPG signed. Red Hat Linux purchased in the US includes
> > GPG, mutt with GPG hooks, a GUI frontend to GPG (called gpgp), and
> > the 128 bit crypto version of Ne
> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:26:20PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > It can -- but it isn't the solution, just a workaround for the U.S.
> > censorship. The real solution would let RedHat ship it on their CDs.
> > GnuPG (not GnuPGP) is in a lot better position, though -- it's produced
> > o
first off... opps... I've been reading about GnuPG for a week or so... but
my mind kept seeing it as GnuPGP.
At 18:13 10/3/99 -0400, Matt Wilson wrote:
>So now, for the good news. Beginning with Red Hat Linux 6.1, all our
>packages are GPG signed. Red Hat Linux purchased in the US includes
>GPG
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:26:20PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> It can -- but it isn't the solution, just a workaround for the U.S.
> censorship. The real solution would let RedHat ship it on their CDs.
> GnuPG (not GnuPGP) is in a lot better position, though -- it's produced
> outside the U
Chris Abbey wrote:
>
> >sorry for my ignorance, but aren't PGP signatures included in every RPM ?
> >I think when you are installing the rpm the rpm verifies the signature.
>
> every RPM *can* be PGP signed... not all are.
> rpm *can* verify the signature of a signed RPM, *IFF* you have pgp inst
>sorry for my ignorance, but aren't PGP signatures included in every RPM ?
>I think when you are installing the rpm the rpm verifies the signature.
every RPM *can* be PGP signed... not all are.
rpm *can* verify the signature of a signed RPM, *IFF* you have pgp installed,
and ask it to do so. Redh
> >
> > The problem is that Microsoft can cryptographically sign their
> > packages whereas Redhat cannot (unless they use a NSA certified,
> > closed-source system to do it).
> >
> > Digital signatures are essential for any live update system like
> > this.
> >
>
> Actually, RedHat can, and
Damien Miller wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Mandrake currently has something similar to this. Its a very very
> > nice feature. It will poll mirrors close to you for updates, and you
> > can install them right fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mandrake currently has something similar to this. Its a very very
> nice feature. It will poll mirrors close to you for updates, and you
> can install them right from the list that pops up. It reminds me
On Sat, 02 Oct 1999, Chris Abbey wrote:
> At 16:58 10/1/99 +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
> [...]
> >comments ?
>
> none that haven't already been said... I can't emphasis enought the point
> that others mention: if a company has that many Linux (or any form of *nix)
> boxen then they must have a co
Mandrake currently has something similar to this. Its a very very nice feature. It
will poll mirrors close to you for updates, and you can install them right from the
list that pops up. It reminds me a bit of WindowsUpdate, minus the rebooting :)
Although I haven't messed with Mandrake all that mu
At 16:58 10/1/99 +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
[...]
>comments ?
none that haven't already been said... I can't emphasis enought the point
that others mention: if a company has that many Linux (or any form of *nix)
boxen then they must have a competent admin group, and that group will use
the tools
> The ideal would be to have a little client on every RH distro shipped which ie
> polls the REDHAT's central webserver (or maybe a custom server, the protocol
> doesn't matter here), and retrieves information about which rpms have to be
> updated, with flags describing the security urgency.
Chec
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 04:58:42PM +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
> Hi,
[...]
> The ideal would be to have a little client on every RH distro shipped which ie
> polls the REDHAT's central webserver (or maybe a custom server, the protocol
> doesn't matter here), and retrieves information about whic
Hi,
recently I came across the hackpcweek.com issue,
and the did not apply the crond exploit fix, since they
"only install shipping software", and were not willing to install
21 different fixes ( from the redhat errata).
But they installed Service Pack5 on NT, since it was one single file to inst
18 matches
Mail list logo
