Craig White wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:28 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> James B. Byrne wrote:
>>> On Tue, November 20, 2012 06:53, C. L. Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Phil Dobbin <bukowskiscat@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2012 08:39 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Ruby and the various gems/frameworks that it has spawned have been
> changing more rapidly than an enterprise bundle such as CentOS and its'
> upstream counterpart could ever embrace (likewise, Ubuntu) and thus the
So, every subrelease breaks something that ran fine on the previous
release? Is that what you're saying?
> tools like rvm, rbenv and the basic distribution tool of ruby itself, gem
> are really the only adequate tools which does mean having the development
> tools on a production box. It seems that the notion of not wanting
> development tools on a production box has roots in an older world where it
> would slow down an attacker by making it harder for him to compile
> software on a hacked account but seriously, that's so old school.
"So old school". Yep. And it's so much more secure, and bullet proof to be
hit by crackers and script kiddies?
I don't think so.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
