Comment Re:Disabled (Score 1) 427
Maybe this would be possible if the vendor offered a restore image for download.
Maybe this would be possible if the vendor offered a restore image for download.
Is there a reason why these programs can only be "disabled," not "removed?"
Then don't and build your own telco.
Will Ubuntu Touch for Phones include spyware, like the shopping lens that they ship with the desktop version of Ubuntu?
Indeed, I just pointed it out as an easy to understand example.
By convention patches are released under the same license as the version it applies to. I'm sure the GNU Bash maintainer is willing to clarify this to Apple if asked.
There are users using it, and it is documented.
But it is part of the ports collection, which is managed by the FreeBSD project and that a lot of FreeBSD users use.
The GNU project shipped officicial patches for all GNU Bash versions going back to 3.0, and I've seen other people patch versions going back to 2.0.
What are you talking about? It is completely factual and a valid point. Apple currently bundles 3.2.51, which is licensed under GPLv2. The patched version of bash is the new 4.3.25, which is licensed using GPLv3. Including it would change the license they are using, which I imagine takes some consideration.
Here are patches for Bash 3.2:
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/b...
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/b...
Actually, Apple uses an old version based on Bash 3.2 which is under GPLv2. Not really a problem, patches exist for as old as Bash 2.0.
First of all, do you run your Mac as a server? If the answer is no then you most likely don't need the patch anyway. The MacPorts binary will depend on libraries installed by MacPorts, there's nothing wrong about that.
It really has nothing to do with the default shell. It won't matter what shell is the default when your CGI script starts with #!/bin/bash.
You have obviously never used Perl.
It's been in there since Bash 1.4.
To do nothing is to be nothing.
