Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > This was in a configure script. Wow. It would never have even occurred to me to not use quotes.
>>This'd be one of my main concerns. If it's behind the equivalently >>priced Dell for instance now, what will it be like in a a year or so? > > Give me a week or so and I should get around to installing Linux on it. Thats > would make for a very interesting comparison. Interesting, but not so important, unless OS-X can catch up to Linux. >>The other thing that concerns me is their jumping through hoops >>to avoid putting metainfo in the name. It has to make it far more >>complex to do porting and navigating files under the different >>subsystems. > > Err, sorry, whats all this about? Err, yeah sorry. That was a bit left field. I know that OS-X marries somehow the old MacOS creator/type information that is kept in different 'forks' of the same file. In contrast to Unix which uses name suffix (.tar) or magic numbers (/etc/magic). I just think that in their attempts to combine all this they're sure to make it quite complex. And complexity breeds insecurity and lack of portability. My reference to Windows is that Windows also has the same sort of multiple data fork files which are hardly ever used. These data forks have been a way to hide data, and also some web attacks rely on web server security not really understanding them either. I would do a cert/cve search except that I forget what windows calls these things. channels? Also supporting Unicode in file names has led to problems. See http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/111677as an example for more details. Doing searches for "unicode" on cert.org or cve.mitre.org will get you a lot of hits. I dunno whether OS-X uses unicode at all; again it just an example of where complexity can help insecurity. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
