Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]

To: Pierre Beyssac <beyssac@enst.fr>
Cc: Samuel Tardieu <sam@debian.org>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@cupid.suninternet.com>, "Huneycutt,\ Doug" <doug.huneycutt@lmco.com>, 56821@bugs.debian.org, pb@enst.fr, quinot@enst.fr, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 13:20:31 -0600
Message-id: <200002021920.NAA26071@cafe.onshore.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:11:24 +0100." <20000202181124.G50448@enst.fr>

>I can't understand why everyone insists on keeping this MBR since
>its "features" serve strictly _NO_ useful purpose other than
>bypassing Lilo and BIOS security, so the argument that removing it
>would impair the system's ease of use is totally flawed.

We could explain in depth why we have additional flexibility when we
combine lilo and mbr.  At I would have to ask Randolph to explain it.
I know that there are reasons but I'm not sure why offhand.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to:

References:
- Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
  - From: Pierre Beyssac <beyssac@enst.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
Next by Date: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
Previous by thread: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
Next by thread: Re: [POSSIBLE GRAVE SECURITY HOLD]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread