Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[viro]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:24:58PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> The inherent instability of binary modules is a religious myth. Any 
> module can be stable or unstable, depending on how it's written, tested 
> and the environment (hardware/evolving APIs it depends on). For 
> example, Apple's current Mac OS X is extremely stable imho, despite the 
> fact that their hardware drivers are generally binary-only.
> 
> The same goes for trustworthiness. It's a matter of point of view / 
> preference whether you trust open-source projects and their security 
> (which can be far from perfect, as evidenced by the recent break-ins in 
> various servers hosting source repositories) more than stuff produced 
> by a corporation. Every model has disadvantages and advantages. 

You are missing the point.  Badly.  All software sucks, be it open-source
of proprietary.  The only question is what can be done with particular
instance of suckage, and that's where having the source matters.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/