[Bush2000]

Yea because its not like the Linux Kernel before and after is available, and easily diffed in CVS that would make it too ease /sarcasm..

Well, since CVS can be hacked, it wouldn't be wise to depend on any of its CRCs...

Flaws drill holes in open-source repository

Not a good day for OSS bigots.

[N3WBI3]

The only biggot on this thread is you, I am content to use windows and Linux, OSS and Closed source... Just because you ignore the problems of your fan boy os does not mean I do..

So let me ask you do have to be a chicom to see the windows kernel?

[N3WBI3]

Again the CVS vulnerability is found and fixed on the same day..

Boy OSS is having a crappy day showing its source control and code checking procedures.

BTW if I cant be sure if linux is fixed (even though I can see the source) how can I be sure a windows patch actually ever fixes anything??

[adam_az]

"Not a good day for OSS bigots."

With you, there are 2 classes of people...

Microsoft using Paladins

OSS Bigots.

Why can't you fathom that there are legions of happy OSS *USERS* out there?

[antiRepublicrat]

Well, since CVS can be hacked, it wouldn't be wise to depend on any of its CRCs...

So you're saying that since CVS has security flaws, then the entire Linux kernel is under suspicion?

[antiRepublicrat]

Come on Bush, that's a pretty strong claim that I think you made, and I'd like to know if Linux's integrity is compromised by this CVS flaw. I don't know much about that CVS exploit, but could someone insert a backdoor into the definitive Linux kernel if they compromised CVS? That would definitely be a bad thing if that is indeed your claim.