Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 03:13:52PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> James Carlson wrote: >> >>> What we're asking here is how the delivered features themselves are >>> properly integrated with the rest of the existing Solaris features, >>> notably Least Privilege and RBAC. If the answer is that they're just >>> not integrated because that's ETOOHARD (which is what I *think* you're >>> asserting), then perhaps architectural review is itself too hard. >>> >>> >> No, I'm not asserting ETOOHARD. I'm claiming that there needs to be a >> balance between architecturally correct and end-user useful. >> > > Sorry, what's the difference between "architecturally correct" and > "end-user useful"? > > I don't see the difference. *shrug*
> > >>> I guess I don't know whether we care about that. I would suggest that >>> Darren and Gary do, which is why they spoke up. It's not to slow down >>> a project or make it "geologic," but to find out what makes it complete. >>> >>> >> Yes. The "geologic" observation on my part is that so far is that some >> issues have become so hard that to all intents and purposes change comes >> > > I don't see how looking at prof_attr(4) and deciding what profile each > sg3 utility most naturally belongs to (or, if none seems appropriate, > then creating new profiles as needed) is "so hard." > Perhaps not. > > > You've gone from "geologic" to "a year," but you're still exagerating > massively. > > Don 't think so.
