<snip> >And all of this falls out of deciding that when people say >"reliability," they don't *really* mean that; they really mean >"security." And when they say "performance", they don't >*really* mean that; they really meant to say "security" >(even though they didn't, which ought to be a hint that >it wasn't what they meant).
If it is a hint then open reasoning is on the table. There is a type of security in obscurity, as witnessed by the discovery of embedded exploits which, by needs, must be addressed by enterprise. > >Claim was made that Debian switched from using Bash >as the default shell (!= "default login shell", by the way) >"because security." When the declared reasons didn't >have the word "security" anywhere. > >But I guess that since *everything* is really computer >security, then the plans must be already well under way >for Debian to recompile everything, from the kernel to >Grub to all the scripting engines during the boot >process. I'm not privy to the inner workings of Debian plans, but all the best planners, I think from the logistic perspective, work on failover and have a contingency for rapid deployment in case a primary plan doesn't work as expected and does indeed fail in service. This is what government brings to the table that enterprise does not; the willingness to spend large amounts of money on two radically different plans with identical aims. So if Debian does not have a fully formulated plan to have a compile at runtime OS, I'd bet there is a set of schema on someone's drawing board somewhere. -- Sent via K-9 Mail. --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
