Am 2. Juli 2022 13:36:12 MESZ schrieb "Michael Ströder" <michael@stroeder.com>:
On 7/2/22 13:24, Eric Schirra wrote:
Am 2. Juli 2022 13:10:09 MESZ schrieb Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com>:
On 02.07.22 11:24, Eric Schirra wrote:
I'm tired of discussing any alleged improvements that actually only raise problems. You need manpower to fix them, but you don't actually have it. Then just leave out the "new" for now until it works.
Then just go back to linux-2.2.16.tar.gz or windows 95.
Features? Security fixes? Who needs them anyway.
Totally unqualified remarks. But I think you noticed that yourself the second time.
Sorry, Eric. But Stefan's answer is not just unqualified. It's an ironic statement to point out that your statement could be understood as overly broad and basically says: Never change a running system, no matter which improvements to security could be achieved. (I'm not in your head, so I do not claim to know what you really meant.)
Personally I appreciate if security defaults are tightened. And yes, sometimes there will be a fall-out one has to deal with. The art is to keep this fall-out fairly small and detect fails ASAP. But there's won't be any progress without taking some risks.
I know it was meant ironically. Nevertheless, his statement was wrong, because I did not say what he said in any words. I merely said that new things, which of course can be or are better and also safe, should only be used when they are, let's say, stable and do not pose a lot of problems. I see this in other areas as well. Old problems are not solved because they are too difficult or uninteresting. Instead, they take something new that is more hip, but doesn't have many functions yet or even bugs. I am not against new things. I certainly don't. But it should take you further and not create new problems. Regards Eric