Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> I'd probably be expressing concerns if, eg, we were porting our
> distribution to a kernel that didn't have support for some form of access
> control, whether it be "user" based, or something else. Some (security
> related) features are just fundamentally necessary to have if you're
> trying to produce a functional operating system in this day and age.
This is a bit off-topic, but there's an assumption buried here that we
already know exactly what the expected uses are of Debian, and that's
the kind of thing that we shouldn't be assuming.
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have an application where
security is really not an issue--yes, this really does happen, even in
this day and age...
The Hurd is not such a system, but it's perfectly reasonable to
imagine Debian ports that are only for such applications. As long as
we are clear and up-front about whatever limitations there might be,
there is no problem here.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com