warning to list

[Ian Pilcher]

Paul Iadonisi wrote:
>   I apologize if I seem a bit antagonistic about this.  It's just that I
> see it as pretty important that people understand what testing means:
> that your data may get eaten alive and no one will be able to save you
> from that.  That's at least partially what's meant when Red Hat says not
> to use it on critical systems.
>   And it's also important to understand what the Fedora Project is and
> how it differs from RHEL.  RHEL *absolutely* *will* receive more
> attention from Red Hat than Fedora Core.  RHEL is the money maker. 
> Fedora Core is the proving grounds.  That's the bottom line.  At least,
> that's how I see it.

 From my point of view, both of those points (with which I agree, BTW)
are orthogonal to the question of having signed packages.  Bugs, even
security-related bugs, are very different from deliberately trojaned
code.

People accept a level of risk of buggy code when they choose to run
Fedora Core (as opposed to RHEL) or a Fedora Core test release.  There
is no good reason, however, to force Fedora Core testers to accept a
higher risk of malware.

-- 
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher                                        i.pilcher at comcast.net
========================================================================