[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Potential security issue with LedgerSMB (inherited from SL)

I think terminal support should be through a separate program with a usable interface :-)

And terminal applications should be using Lynx or something similar (believe it or not, it works better with SL than Links due to screen size and extra key presses).

Terminal support is a good thing for scripting and automation.  But the current approach is bad...

On 9/11/06, Christopher Murtagh < ..hidden..> wrote:
On 9/11/06, Chris Travers < ..hidden..> wrote:
> In 2.4.x bin/xterm was basically a symlink to bin/lynx
> THe fact that it is not there in 2.6 is an indication that nobody uses it.
> Which is a good thing as far as the security issue is concerned. :-)

Cool. So, do we agree that we drop terminal support? I'm ok with
saying that if folks want this, they can use lynx, links, w3m, etc..
This would certainly make security issues much easier to deal with and
help clean up the code somewhat. After all, we are building a web
based application aren't we?



Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list