Re: [Sheflug] Re: 2.4.4

[nospam [at] alexhudson.com]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 11:31:29PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> Suit yourself. But if they could give me one REAL reason, I would love
> to know what it is. The firewalling code seems more robust, loads of bugs
> and races have been fixed and there are no known security issues. I
> suppose there is the "it hasn't been tested well enough yet" way of
> thinking, but TBH you can think that till the end of time and still be
> right.

So the ftp exploit (for example) isn't a known security issue?

Personally, I would use it on a dial-up computer, but not on a firewall left
on. But, the reasons I have is that 2.4 falls over every five minutes, it's
just not stable enough (caveat: I haven't tried the new OOM fixes, that
might do the trick)

Cheers,

Alex.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.