Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: mudman <mudman@R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu> To: Ben Smithurst <ben@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Security Announcements? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0104101527500.15117-100000@R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu> In-Reply-To: <20010410215014.A8173@scientia.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well if you want the latest security fixes you shouldn't be running a > -release anyway, that's that the -stable branch is for. This may be a new attitude in security. I should think *any* system released for common use should have the greatest amount of security possible. If one system is (in terms of security) inferior to another, the inferior one should be dropped all together. I guess I'm being naive here, but not intetionally. I really don't know. What would be the fundamental difference between the release and stable branches? Why would one branch run less secure than another, especially if both are used in server systems world wide? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0104101527500.15117-100000>