On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:52 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Andrew Wyatt wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > > >> Steve Clark wrote: > >> > On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: > >> >> On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > >> >>> William Woods wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Please stop top posting. > >> >>>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > >> >>>>> William Woods wrote: > >> >>>>>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning <centos at u62.u22.net > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 > >> >>>>>>>> my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants > >> to > >> >>>>>>>> be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - > >> >>>>>>>> umm.. like Windoze! > >> >>>>>>>> My $.02 > >> >>>>>>> + $ 10.00 :-) > >> >>>>>> Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> Well... we know that > 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and > >> >>>>> other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server > >> >>>>> vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, > >> >>>>> for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed..... > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> Like OpenSSL ? > >> >>> I suggest you google with the following search criteria: "windows > >> >>> server" exploits > >> >>> > >> >> Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no > >> matter > >> >> what you decide to believe. > >> >> > >> > Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. > >> > > >> Replying to this, because I saw a reply from him, but there was no new > >> content, for some reason. > >> > >> Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, > >> rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and > vulnerabilities that > >> Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... > >> but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. > >> > > Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. > > > > http://heartbleed.com/ > > > > Oh, wait. > > This is *pointless*. Point to something *OTHER* than heartbleed. And as > this is the CentOS list, please note that 5.x was *not* affected at all. > > Or does your attention span not go back more than a couple of months? > > mark, getting annoyed > > Ok, older. I can do that. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962792 Have another one. Doesn't matter that 5.x wasn't affected at all by Heartbleed, 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >