On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:39:01PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 29 Dec 2009 at 06:38:23 PST Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:56:51 -0700, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> 
> >wrote:
> >>Update:
> >>
> >>I confirmed that the scheduled publication date for my article will be
> >>Tuesday the 29th.
> >
> >It's up at http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=2888
> >
> Well done, Chad!


> 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.

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.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

Attachment: pgpx31crd6Ayq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to