Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Juanma Barranquero]

2012/1/6 Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden>:

> I don't think those are as risky, but even if I did it doesn't really
> support your point.

It does support my point that if we do it for GnuTLS, we should do it
for other libraries. Of course, I believe we shouldn't.

> That's a very tough comparison.  I'm listing "extensible layout engines
> with embedded interpreters and flexible package managers" which Apache
> has never been, never mind that it's not interactive with the user since
> it's a daemon.

It could still check and write a log entry for the administrator. Or
it could have a module, accessible only to some authenticated user,
that listed recommended upgrades. It doesn't.

And it's not necessarily a daemon. You can start it in batch mode to
check things. It could have an option to check upgrades in that case.
It doesn't, either.

> None of my proposal aims to make users feel secure, but rather
> to tell them when they are not.

And, as soon as they have upgraded, the users feel secure again.
Particularly on Windows, where most people is not very
security-conscious.

Anyway, I think the dead equine has been beaten to a pulp and turned
into fertilizer. We don't really advance anything rehashing the same
arguments again and again, IMHO. YMMV.

    Juanma