ashes cendres at
Sat Jan 3 10:14:10 PST 2004

Is there any reasons uclibc would be considered more secure then glibc? What 
sort of applications would not be able to build with uclibc? I'm pretty sure 
X will, if not then TinyX. Should at least be considered. uclibc and busybox 
is less code, should be less prone to bugs too.

I'm trying to to think of what's best for the community, and what's best for 
the project. Not so much what people want. That doesn't sound like good 
marketing, but being a free project, what are we selling? The world already 
has enough marketing, a bit more isn't going to impress anyone.

I should hope hlfs will be more then a collection of patches that would have 
fit in a few hints. This project began by us agreeing this would never be 
able to fit in a hint. The goals are going to have to be compeditive with 
other security projects (hardened gentoo, immunix, openbsd) or no one will 
use it. I also think the first book release should have at least one serious 
feature that no one else has. Either a unique base system design, or even 
just the educational value, but something more then a bunch of commands to 
paste and outside links.

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list