Skip to Content [alt-c]


In reply to Comment by Reader DES

Anonymous on 2016-12-28 at 09:22:

If you sincerely believe that rewriting [...] software in a memory-safe language would make it inherently more secure [...]

(emphasis mine)

Ooh, that's a nice strawman you've got there.

The author wrote:

To provide a meaningful improvement to security without rewriting in a memory-safe language, Apache would need to [...]

Which doesn't state that rewriting is the only thing needed to make it more secure. You're misrepresenting his "rewriting is one possible necessary condition, but I do not state whether it is a sufficient one" to "rewriting is one possible necessary and sufficient condition to making the software safer".

Not sure whether to attribute this to malice or accidental (or emotion-influenced) lack of reading comprehension.

Given the history of tactics employed by pro-systemd (and to be fair, anti-systemd) folks, it's getting harder to give the benefit of doubt. But I (and others, I hope) should strive to keep the discussion free of fame wars and intellectual dishonesty, right?


Post a Reply

Your comment will be public. To contact me privately, email me. Please keep your comment polite, on-topic, and comprehensible. Your comment may be held for moderation before being published.

(Optional; will be published)

(Optional; will not be published)

(Optional; will be published)

  • Blank lines separate paragraphs.
  • Lines starting with > are indented as block quotes.
  • Lines starting with two spaces are reproduced verbatim (good for code).
  • Text surrounded by *asterisks* is italicized.
  • Text surrounded by `back ticks` is monospaced.
  • URLs are turned into links.
  • Use the Preview button to check your formatting.