Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:27:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> 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...
Sure, fine. But I think it should be safe to assume that any released
Debian distribution should work in more situations than those which
security (or Internetworking) isn't an issue.
This isn't about default configurations: it's about whether there's any
capacity for this at all. It doesn't even need to be that brilliant,
an "ipfwadm" replacement is fine if an "iptables" replacement is too
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com