Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:41:04 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= <askbill@conducive.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *Suspect* Re: SOLVED: qemu: freebsd6_mmap -1 errno 12 Cannot allocate memory Message-ID: <475AF350.1060100@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: <20071208191310.GA5475@grosbein.pp.ru> References: <20071208191310.GA5475@grosbein.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein wrote: > David Wood <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote: > >> It's your choice, but from a security perspective, this worries me. >> >> You will have applications you are using linked against FreeBSD >> libraries that no longer have any FreeBSD security team support. > > [skip] > > The definite need to keep the system secure is another and distinct > matter from the need of binary backwards compatibility for userland. > In no way the former cancels the latter. > > Eugene Grosbein > _______________________________________________ Looks like I shipped my S-100 gear to the wrong guy. The ability to build from source and have access to source, is prized among the experienced not so much because we fear hidden 'gotcha's from the malicious or even proprietary vendor lock-in - but more for the ability to *see* what breaks, rapidly locate and apply already-known fixes, or ask for expert assistance when new ones are needed. And in less time and lower cost than it takes the average bear to acknowledge, find, and fix closed-source. Witness IBM, Sun, HP, Apple et al adoption of a large measure of F/OSS. They can no longer afford to do otherwise. All that precisely because taking even limited advantage of progress makes the delivery of binary backwards compatibility - much as we may want it and strive for it - contrary to progress, and an impracticality in the real world. Deal with that as best you can. ELSE revert to the last century and run Windows. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?475AF350.1060100>