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

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd



On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:34:41PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2000/debian-hurd-200010/msg00239.html
> Well, in that mail it sounded less like a dogma, but more like a general
> discussion about system security.

*shrug* I haven't seen anything in a year and a half to convince me
that the Hurd has something else that can replace firewalling tools,
and they've only become a more standard part of OS security in that time.

If you have something that does everything iptables can do, but does it
somewhat differently, that's fine. If you don't have anything that can
do what ipfwadm does, you need to fix it.

I realise you don't think that's important, but well, there're reasons
the Hurd's been developed for over a decade and still hasn't had a
real release.

> that's what is required to get an otherwise completely functional system to
> be rubber stamped by the release manager, I might just as well waste a day
> or two on it, so that the other effort is saved.

*shrug* I'm unlikely to consider a quick hack done at the very last
minute a reliable firewalling tool.

You have at least a year before the next release, if you want to ignore
this warning, you're quite welcome to. Maybe I'll even change my mind
in a year.

Quite frankly, I've no idea why you're quite so dogmatically against
having firewalling tools. If you ever want to be released, you have
to make the best tools available you can, even if you know they're
not perfect.

Additionally, if you're not willing to take any advice on board, don't
expect to recieve any again.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpFpnuxBwUoJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: