Re: Proposal: gnome-user-share

[Bryan Clark <bclark redhat com>]

On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 22:25 -0500, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> How secure is howl? It's not exactly a widely deployed piece of software
> either. Yet, we still just shoved in and depended on it. And what about
> neon? It's used by gnome-vfs now. I don't think security was one of the
> primary claims to fame in either of the decisions to use them. Yet, we
> do.

Yes and you chose to use howl for epittance as well.  Each of these
libraries were chosen as what the maintainer felt were the most secure
methods of providing the correct functionality for GNOME.  If you felt
there were more secure libraries or applications that should have been
chosen instead of those that were you should have voiced your opinion at
that time.  You still can try to change those things if you feel they
are insecure and there is a better alternative out there, but crying
wolf at every library doesn't do any good.

> >   Just because security holes are not known yet does not mean
> > that it is secure.
> 
> How very true. Just because Apache has had a lot of security holes, and
> they've been fixed, doesn't mean there won't be more, either.

Arguing with me about epittance being just as secure as apache is
ridiculous and not this list is for.

~ Bryan