archaic at indy.rr.com
Sun Mar 7 14:58:03 PST 2004
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:29:41PM +0000, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Therefore, a HLFS ISO would either need to be as basic as
> possible (i.e. only provide a hardened LFS system) which would be
> largely useless (in a prod. env.), or provide hardened versions of every
> package in BLFS, which by it's very nature would lead to a less secure
> system as you would more than likely be providing more services and
> binaries than you actually need.
Good point. :)
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent
that will reach unto himself.
- Thomas Paine
More information about the hlfs-dev