Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows

From: svek (svek-YOU-KNOW-THE-DRILL@gmx.net)
Date: 06/21/02


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



Relevant Pages

  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... > 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. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >> 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. ... support for c++ standards a big plus... ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: double the buffer? - buffer overflows
    ... >> 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. ... support for c++ standards a big plus... ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)