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

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd



On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > That isn't the sort of attitude that results in quality software, and
> > it's at its least acceptable when we're talking about security tools.
> I agree.  I prefer to not have a firewall feature at all over the quick
> hack I am thinking of.

Then don't bother doing it. If the quick hack's no better than no
firewall, it obviously isn't going to satisfy me.

If it has a reasonable chance of being better than no firewall, do it with
enough time for it to be tested, and any problems to be fixed. There's a
reason I'm telling you this well before the next release comes about --
the same one that explains why I told you about it so much before this
release for that matter. If you leave it until then to think about it
again, you won't end up with the result you're hoping for.

> This gives a clear message: If you need a
> firewall, look somewhere else.

And not having debian/dists/stable/main/binary-hurd-i386 gives a
similarly clear message: if you want a usable, stable operating system,
look somewhere else.

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: pgpm3YtdcSapr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: