David Harris writes:
> Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > If it's good enough for Microsoft, it's good enough for me. If I lifted
> > the exact verbiage from their End User License Agreement (any actual
> > product, pick your favorite), and used it instead, would that make you feel
> > more comfortable?
> >
> > The problem with that is that both of them are completely identical, once
> > you strip away the legalese in MS EULA.
>
> Who cares where you got that verbiage?
Well, if you don't care about facts, there's no point in arguing anything
with you.
> > The real answer is that I wrote that paragraph about six months ago.
> > Revising that paragraph is probably the last on my list of priorities.
>
> Oh, so you _do_ wish to be personally stand behind and be personally liable for
> your setuid-root code?
>
> The only thing I'm saying is that it's inappropriate for you to get ticked off
Who's ticked off around here? Not me.
> If you want your code to be trusted more, please use some other programming
> methods which are generally more secure (i.e. your code does not have to be
> _perfect_ to be secure) and responsible, instead of the setuid-root CGI app
Feel free to show off your superior skills, and write your own CGI. Until
you do, your assertions don't have much substance behind them.
--
Sam
