Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 16-Aug-06, 19:23 (CDT), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yeah, wanting to use functionality when it's available is always a >> dreadful idea. Far better to reimplement it locally in order to ensure >> that we have more copies of it to fix should there ever be any sort of >> security flaw. > > You can't have it both ways. Either your program *requires* the > new/unusual functionality exist on the system, in which case it will > never port to the systems that don't have it, or you'll have to > provde a custom implementation, in which case you have the multiple > implementations problem anyway.
Or (c), my program will take advantage of extra functionality when it's present. You seem to be asserting that this level of granularity is unacceptable, so in your model we end up with a choice between less functional software or potential screaming security misery. I think this is arbitrary and unnecessary. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
