On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0500, Gene wrote: > I did have F12 installed, 64 bit version, but it was (pick a number * 10) > slower than the 32 bit F10 install. Based on what measurements? What tools did you use to determine that it was slower? > The only reason I loaded F12 in the first place was to get an updated for the > man-in-the-middle exploit of openssh as supplied for F10. openssh? OpenSSL CVE-2009-3555 it seems. See below: > You had a bit over > 60 days to fix that from the exploit announcement in (I think) late Sept > 2009, to the end of F10 support yesterday and when I queried fedora-list > about it a couple of weeks back was essentially told to go pound sand, it > wasn't going to be fixed. You were pointed at the related FAQ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/533125#c37 You might want to read the following, too, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openssl/+bug/484417 (which is only half the story as actually they applied an experimental "fix" in middle November only to change their mind in early December when they reverted the patch again). None of this has anything to do with you trying an optional boot loader in Fedora 10 more than a year after it had been published and requesting a fix "asap". Perhaps that package has never worked for Fedora 10. Perhaps it has not been tested by any substantial number of people even after its release in Fedora 10, because if the primary [legacy] GRUB still does its job, there is not much incentive to try the development version before it will become the distribution's primary choice, too. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
