Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:04:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Gardas <kgardas@objectsecurity.com>
To: "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <A.Solofnenko@mdl.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
In-Reply-To: <419A6857.2030701@mdl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0411162159550.13313-100000@gardas.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1296
Lines: 43
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Alexey N. Solofnenko wrote:

> Yes to what? Both approaches are functionally equivalent. Darcs only
> checks signatures on unsafe mails, but other protocols should check
> authenticity themselves

Unfortunatelly security is not only about authentication/authorization
(for transport)

> (anonymous users should not be able to check
> anything in).

In ideal world yes, in this world full of script kiddies and crackers,
this is highly discutable topic.

> For me a Windows support is much more important and in darcs world
> Windows is a first class citizen.

That's great to hear, since that's exactly one of the most important
reasons I play with darcs. (if our win32 developers would be able to use
darcs thorough some kind of tla2darcs proxy, then great! :-)

> Unless you do the same people will standardize on something else than
> tla.

Hard to tell. Free software movement in general is not that dependant on
M$.

Cheers,
Karel
--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/