Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 21:04:28 -0400 From: "T.M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: code density vs readability Message-ID: <3BC24D1C.1AFD7F2F@mail.ptd.net> References: <20010927141333.A44288@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <p05100334b7d8e6544d17@[194.78.144.27]> <20011002133112.B98079@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20011002135226.A33832@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <20011002142257.C98079@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <dxitdxlx44.tdx@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> writes: > > > I finally took several people's advice. I didn't give up VI, but emacs > > is amazing for big, complicated jobs. > > I've been using only Emacs (actually mostly XEmacs and some small Emacs > clones like Jed) for a long time, but recently decided it would be > better to try to force myself to use vi for editing as root. (I learned > it 20 years ago and liked the two-mode concept, but I've forgotten all > but the very basics.) > > I got to worrying about the amount of Emacs code there is and to suspect > that much of it changes often and is seen by only a few eyes and am > thinking it will be safer from a security standpoint to run vi. > > Is that overly paranoid? Do other people have this concern? Do many > people run XEmacs or Emacs as root on a regular basis? Does vim have a > lot of similarly suspectable code in it too? If memory serves, the Great Worm of '88 exploited a security hole in Emacs (among other things). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BC24D1C.1AFD7F2F>