On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:44:37PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
Actually, that's a fair assessment at this point.
Looking at what you've written, you seem to consider OpenBSD to be
pretty secure. By extension, let's assume the developers, and Theo in
particular, have some darned good knowledge about security and some
priorities in that regard. Then, when Theo and developers (and others in
this community) weigh in and tell you that virtualization is not more
secure, but less, you continue and continue.
As someone who doesn't know a great deal about virtualization, I can
tell you that you're not convincing me of anything with your arguments.
I feel confident in saying that you're not convincing any of the devs,
either. And I doubt you've done much for this cause with the list
members at large.
So what the hell are you doing? Just flaming now? Gave up trying to show
something and just trying to get a few jabs in?
As someone who reads this list and would like to know more about
virtualization, pros and cons, I ask you to put more actual meat into
your posts if you're going to continue. As it stands, fits
all too well.
--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
| Andreas Gruenbacher | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
| Alan Cox | Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2 |
| Jens Axboe | Re: regression: CD burning (k3b) went broke |
| Paul E. McKenney | Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures |
git: | |
| KOSAKI Motohiro | [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Alexey Dobriyan | [PATCH 09/33] netns ct: per-netns /proc/net/nf_conntrack, /proc/net/stat/nf_conntr... |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
