[linux-elitists] What to do about cluebatting such companies, that require possibly *YEARS* old Distros
Thu Jan 27 11:54:46 PST 2005
Quoting Aaron Sherman (email@example.com):
> The statement has been made, over and over again that there's some
> decisive link between the competency/agility of a company that upgrades
> OSes frequently vs. one that does not (note that I'm not at all talking
> about the CAPACITY to upgrade frequently, but the act). Without examples
> and counter-examples, I am left to assume that's simply speculation.
You are perhaps attempting to have some different discussion from what I
was speaking of. This is not necessarily a bad thing: I'm sure there
is room for many logically separate discussions in this area. It's just
unfortunate when people speak at cross-purposes.
(There, Bob. I personally think that's so freakin' generous of spirit
that I can feel the ghost of Robert G. Ingersoll frowning at my
deliberate reining in of rhetoric.)
What I was saying is that systems exposed to hostile networks _and_
running obsolete/EOLed, unmaintained systems carry obvious extreme risk
over time of compromise and subversion by hostile parties. Consequent
to that, there would be extreme risk of data leakage, reputation loss,
legal liability, etc.
Connect a dot or two from there, and it's pretty obvious that a
competitor of that company, not operating under the same careless
condition of disability as to exposed systems, would "do better than
Now, you're quite welcome to have some completely different discussion
that neighbours onto that one. But it wouldn't be the one I've been
having (solo, perhaps, but having it nonetheless).
> Ok fine. In the case of outward facing systems that is valid....
I will note, with patience that I will attempt not to too
melodramatically emphasise, that I carefully qualified what I said as
concerning hosts exposed to hostile networks. And will withhold comment
Good fortune to you, happy anniversary of the '73 Paris Peace Accords, etc.
More information about the linux-elitists