4 ms·
I agree that the article was very light on details. I like the philosophy of trying to squash whole classes of bugs and generally trying to reduce the attack s
by cobbzilla 10y ago
I agree that the article was very light on details.
I like the philosophy of trying to squash whole classes of bugs and generally trying to reduce the attack surface, versus one-by-one bugfixes.
I am curious about the solutions the Linux developer community will come up with to address this. There are many, many very smart developers and I look forward to some creativity :)
I am optimistically hopeful that proposed solutions will not involve anything resembling a central authority that must be trusted -- something based on Certificate Authorities (or any analog to Microsoft's Trusted Computing model), would be really disappointing.
- jessaustin 10y agoI am optimistically hopeful that proposed solutions will not involve anything resembling a central authority that must be trusted ISTM that most distros use central software repositories, already? And that is very much a good thing? Definitely anything run by M$ or a similar firm could have conflicting goals, but don't paint e.g. the Debian Project with the same brush.
- cobbzilla 10y agoI wasn't painting with any brushes, just expressing optimism and hope for a good solution. Any Linux user is free to use whatever distro they want. Once you've chosen a flavor of Linux, in theory you could even run your own apt/rpm repository. There is no requirement that a Linux user must trust some third-party or their system won't run. Let's keep it that way :)
- jessaustin 10y agoGood point! One could imagine a really big customer forcing M$ to let it use a company repo, but that option would rarely be offered to consumers.