Ryan Davis wrote: > On Apr 27, 2007, at 13:57 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > >> Eric Hodel wrote: >>> If you find tattle is reporting information you don't want public >>> after you've published it, you should have checked out what it was >>> doing first and not run tattle. >>> >>> (While the first release of tattle didn't have the report option, it >>> was still simple enough to visit the tattle report page or inspect >>> the source to discover what was being reported.) >> If you didn't want a security hole in your system you should have read >> all the code first. >> >> Sound a little silly? > > Actually, no. That is part of the appeal of open source in the first > place, remember?
The appeal of open source is that you *can* look at the source, not that you *have to*. > > Also... it is called TATTLE. If you're sensitive about your > information, maybe applying a bit of critical thinking towards the > name of the tool in the first place would be prudent. I'm not the only one that felt this way, and the information has been removed from the site. So I think it's a moot point to labor this point anymore. - Charlie _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
