This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- From: Jim Hebert <jhebert at compu-aid dot net>
- To: Francois Leclerc <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>
- Cc: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>, <open-source at csl dot sri dot com>, <security-audit at ferret dot lmh dot ox dot ac dot uk>, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>, <a dot josey at opengroup dot org>, <tiemann at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:28:54 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Francois Leclerc wrote:
> I will take as a sustaining point that RedHat is considering the OpenBSD
> security effort trustworthy as it is reselling OpenBSD for
> a secure web server. http://www.openbsd.org/products.html#based
What are you talking about?
I don't know how that page looks in your browser, but the listing
for Stronghold appears under a column headed by:
"Hardware/Software products for OpenBSD"
which runs NEXT to the column "Products based on OpenBSD."
Indeed, if you go read at Red Hat's site, you can see that they sell
Stronghold for a variety of UNIX platforms, among which OpenBSD has
no particularly favorable billing next to Solaris, Unixware, BSDi, etc.
Red Hat does not resell OpenBSD. If they did, I'd buy some RHAT stock just
so that I could file the shareholder lawsuit. ;-P
They sell a peice of software compiled for it, and if we're implying any
judgement on Red Hat's part about the security effort from their page, it
could only be that it is equal or perhaps even lower (it's listed lower
;-P) than DEC OSF 4 and HP-UX 11, as well as linuxglibc2.2. ;-P