Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
From: svek (svek-YOU-KNOW-THE-DRILL@gmx.net)Date: 06/21/02
- Next message: Sundial Services: "Re: Sound permissions changed = hacked?"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- In reply to: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Next in thread: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Reply: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: svek <svek-YOU-KNOW-THE-DRILL@gmx.net> Date: 21 Jun 2002 16:30:46 GMT
Rex Dieter <rdieter@unl.edu> wrote in news:aevinb$fht$2@unlnews.unl.edu:
> Sure it was a beta, but redhat chose to use it because it was STILL
> better than anything available at the time (especially to support
> archs other than x86).
I don't judge redhat, they probably had their reasons but in my opinion one
should use stable software in a stable release.
but then again that is one of the reasons I don't use redhat.
/svek
- Next message: Sundial Services: "Re: Sound permissions changed = hacked?"
- Previous message: Tim Haynes: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- In reply to: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Next in thread: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Reply: Rex Dieter: "Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
