From owner-freebsd-security Tue Apr 10 15:28:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu (R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu [128.111.181.204]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52C437B422; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mudman@R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu) Received: from localhost (mudman@localhost) by R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3AMYQC15129; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:34:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mudman@R181204.resnet.ucsb.edu) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: mudman To: Ben Smithurst Cc: Subject: Re: Security Announcements? In-Reply-To: <20010410215014.A8173@scientia.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > 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