[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Release plans
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Release plans |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:23:54 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Hi, Johannes!
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:19AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
> Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
> >> And what is the difference between an Emacs that calls non-free code
> >> via a binary module, and an Emacs that accesses files via TRAMP and
> >> non-free SSH?
> > The ability of a binary module to disable `defun' and prevent all but
> > digitally signed code from being loaded.
> How about fset'ing defun to something new?
> You still have not answered to what I said yesterday: This
> microsoft8.dll `functionality' does not in any way rely on the feature
> proposed here.
I suppose not, strictly speaking. From a publicity point of view, using
a Lisp library to disable Lisp is much more blatantly wrong than using a
binary "to enhance the security of an otherwise complete working system".
It would be easier (technically, and probably legally, too) to remove the
nastiness from a .elc file than a .dll one, whilst still leaving positive
features working.
> And if you would want to do Bad Things, what prevents you from calling a
> non-free binary with Emacs' process interface?
You mean getting other people to call your non-free binary, I think. The
fact that it's a process-level interface prevents the binary from doing
much damage to the guts of Emacs. Doesn't it?
> See, I really believe in your points that this feature has the
> potential to be abused. But to me it is not obvious how it would open
> a _extra_ possibilities besides doing it more technically advanced.
> The libotr bindings I have in mind would also work with the process
> model. Just hack up an executable that can be controlled by
> command-line arguments to wire up your elisp stuff with libotr.
How much more does the libotr library need than writing to its stdin and
reading from its stdout?
[ .... ]
> But I have no way right now to implement pluggable bindings in a sane
> way that I would consider better than an ugly hack.
OK.
> Hannes
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Release plans, (continued)
- Re: Release plans, Alan Mackenzie, 2008/08/18
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/18
- Dynamic loading (was: Release plans), Stefan Monnier, 2008/08/18
- Dynamic loading (was: Release plans), Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/18
- Re: Dynamic loading, Stefan Monnier, 2008/08/20
- Re: Dynamic loading, joakim, 2008/08/20
- Re: Dynamic loading, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/25
- Re: Dynamic loading, Richard M. Stallman, 2008/08/26
- Re: Release plans, Alan Mackenzie, 2008/08/18
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/18
- Re: Release plans,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Release plans, Johannes Weiner, 2008/08/19
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/19
- Re: Release plans, Robert J. Chassell, 2008/08/19
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/20
- Re: Release plans, Robert J. Chassell, 2008/08/20
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/24
- Re: Release plans, Robert J. Chassell, 2008/08/25
- Re: Release plans, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/08/25
- Re: Release plans, Robert J. Chassell, 2008/08/25
- Re: Release plans, Thomas Lord, 2008/08/25