* Ian Clarke <ian.clarke at gmail.com> [2008-12-15 14:35:19]:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on
> > emu,
> > and I can see his point.
>
> ...which is?
>
As explained for the Nth+1 time:
Four main reasons:
- a legal one: We aren't allowed to
- a technical one: They are other ways of achieving the exact
same level of "functionality" (signing and distributing a signed
windows installers)
- a security one: we should *NOT* store the signing keys of the
installer on emu
- a lazyness related one: M$' code is not open source: we can't
easily review it and "sandboxing" it properly (to ensure it doesn't do
anything we don't want it to - I don't trust Microsoft either) involves
a lot of work I am not willing to do... Especially because
alternatives are available.
> We're the Freenet Project, not the "anti-Microsoft" project.
How is that even remotely relevant here?
> If using some Microsoft code helps us to offer a better piece of software to
> our users then why wouldn't we?
>
You are not *reading* what is written: as said toad: I object to running
Microsoft provided binaries on *emu*. I have no objection to anyone
using whatever piece of software they deem appropriate on their machine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20081215/8ecafbcc/attachment.pgp>
