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

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd (firewalling tools)

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:36:53AM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Quite frankly, I've no idea why you're quite so dogmatically against
> > having firewalling tools.
> What are we accomplishing with this "firewalling" argument?  I think it's
> pretty clear that we'd like the HURD to support these things (routing,
> packet filtering) eventually; and it's also clear that it's up to the USER
> to decide how to use them.  There's no need for us to decide whether it
> makes more sense to have dedicated firewalls, or "firewalls" on every
> machine, or no firewalls at all: the users of the HURD should be able to
> decide what they want to do, and do it.  It is, after all, about freedom
> and choice and configurability.


The problem is that if Hurd releases without firewalling tools we haven't
allowed our users to make this choice.

> By releasing
> the HURD to as many interested developers as possible is probably the best
> way to get these things implemented as well.

That's what unstable's for. There's also nothing stopping people from
making Hurd CDs (and this has already been done) and giving it to people.


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: pgpYFQEqbe5Kb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: