On Tue 29 Dec 2009 at 14:51:23 PST Chad Perrin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:39:01PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote:
One question, however. Are we prepared to back up the claim that the
"sexy" bits of PC-BSD are the least secure? Your argument depends on
that claim, since it's also implied in your description of development
team's priorities.
Define "we". As I'm not a core developer for FreeBSD, nor anyone in a
position of official representation of either the OS development project
or the Foundation, my statements in the article should not be taken as
necessarily indicative of anyone's opinions but my own.
I said "we" rather than "you" because I agree with your argument. :)
The claim about the "sexy" bits of PC-BSD is based on my experience with
tarted-up GUIs and "feature-rich" software. It is intended as a
generalization rather than a categorical statement of absolute truth.
All stuffy pedantry of mine aside, though, if you want to expand on
your concerns, I'd be happy to read about them.
I was wondering if anyone has done a study of reported security holes
and if that data supports the assertion that the "sexy" GUI stuff PC-BSD
adds was more likely to be involved than the base OS.
But even if there hasn't been any such study, I think it would be
worthwhile to flesh out your assertion with a few examples of the kind
of security problems that arise when the "sexy" stuff is used.
As I said above, I think the argument stands or falls on our ability to
defend this point.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
