On 01-22 21:14, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to add complexity to a suckless program
> for a _bug_ in X (that is kinda fixed already).
This got me tinking: Is there a place in the suckless philosophy for
security? (However one wants to define that). Small code base can't mean
"insecurity".
I for one, love suckless software, but I want "security" as a basic
feature, too.
I do want more complexity in slock to work around this (or another)
keypad issue. And I want slock to stay on top no matter what other
clients want.
I also really like sic and ii, but without extra code for SSL, I won't
use it.
Has the general problem been discsussed before?
--
ilf
Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg!
-- Eine Initiative des Bundesamtes für Tastaturbenutzung
Received on Mon Jan 23 2012 - 10:40:03 CET