[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> There is nothing that prohibits anyone to relocate the translators
> from /hurd to /trans or whatever, the point is that they are in
> /hurd now and this will not change, and this does not violate the FHS!
Sorry for adding to this pointless thread. M
HAESSIG Jean-Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is all about modifying the FHS...
Yes, but not on this list. This is not the appropriate place to
discuss FHS modifications.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Hi, and here we go again,
There is nothing that prohibits anyone to relocate the translators
from /hurd to /trans or whatever, the point is that they are in
/hurd now and this will not change, and this does not violate the FHS!
Ok for /hurd, then. However, before modifying t
Hi, and here we go again,
There is nothing that prohibits anyone to relocate the translators
from /hurd to /trans or whatever, the point is that they are in
/hurd now and this will not change, and this does not violate the FHS!
The only directory that is "required" on GNU/Hurd is /servers which
s
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You are not allowed to create directories in /bin, please read the
FHS before posting such ideas. To quote:
3.4.2 Requirements
There must be no subdirectories in /bin.
Cheers,
I know that. The question is : 'why ?'.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
You are not allowed to create directories in /bin, please read the
FHS before posting such ideas. To quote:
3.4.2 Requirements
There must be no subdirectories in /bin.
Cheers,
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
David Starner wrote:
At 09:28 AM 5/27/02 +0200, HAESSIG Jean-Christophe wrote:
why not putting them in /bin/modules
Because directories in /bin are prohibited by the FHS, so we might
as well stay with /hurd?
This is all about modifying the FHS... They just say there should be no
subdirectories in
>
>
>On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:16:08PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>
>You are looking at completely the wrong properties. The issue is not
at all
>if a file is a binary, a text file, a picture or a marshmallow from outer
>space. Here are a few hints that should bring you on the right trac
On 25-May-02 11:26:57 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WV> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
>> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > If a sysadmin allows too many freedoms to a user, you're likely
>> > to end up in big problems. Clueless users tryi
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If a sysadmin allows too many freedoms to a user, you're likely to end up
> > in big problems. Clueless users trying to 'play' with a system can
> > accidentally make a mistake and fry th
On 25-May-02 08:58:26 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WV> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
>> > I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin
>> > to limit the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous.
[snip]
>> I really get mad when I hear that the sysadm
Hello!
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> >
> > I really get mad when I hear that the sysadmin owns the machine and pays
> > for its used resources. Whenever I worked somewhere and I had a sysadmin
> > it was the sysadmin
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 05:22, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:32:10PM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
> >
> > I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin to limit
> > the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous. After all, it's the
> > sysadmin who owns the mach
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> > I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin to limit
> > the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous. After all, it's the
> > sysadmin who owns the machine, pays for the network connection, is
> > responsible for network traffic
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:32:10PM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
>
>
> I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin to limit
> the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous. After all, it's the
> sysadmin who owns the machine, pays for the network connection, is
> responsible f
Hello,
sorry that I'm now also writing one more useless mail
but I had to reply to this comment below.
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:32:10PM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
>
>
> I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin to limit
> the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That sure sounds like kerberos to me. Or at least one of the many
> things kerberos can do.
Except that kerberos cannot hand out a Posix UID. That's the key
difference here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That sure sounds like kerberos to me. Or at least one of the many
> things kerberos can do.
Perhaps. There are some similarities in structure. I'm not terribly
familiar with typical kerberos usage, but I thought one of the points
were that you can get
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:48:06AM +0200, Niels M?ller wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I am not 100% sure what you mean by password server
>
> The hurd passwd server lets you get an authentication token in
> exchange for a password. Somewhat like PAM, they both handle s
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not 100% sure what you mean by password server
The hurd passwd server lets you get an authentication token in
exchange for a password. Somewhat like PAM, they both handle simple
cleartext passwords, but one important difference is that PAM can't
* Jeroen Dekkers
[...]
| The Hurd has more security features than Linux has. I have never seen
| a password server for Linux for example.
I am not 100% sure what you mean by password server but from the short
description I have seen of it, kerberos does much of the same thing:
give out an auth
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:20:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:10:20AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Actually, it's that everyone's found the Linux kernel does provide a sane
> > > and stable external interface.
> > First time I hear someone saying that. Talked
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're reasoning based on authority *again*. Why? Nobody is telling
> anybody to do anything.
I think it's the right design decision for the Hurd. So, in fact, do
all the other Hurd developers that have said anything on the subject.
> However, the
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I must have misunderstood Emile's question then. I thought he was
> asking when it would be reasonable to have create a new root-level
> directory, in general. Not anything to do with Debian specifically. In
> particular, with my understanding of his qu
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What amazes me is that you cannot explain in a few words, to a person
> who is capable of abstract reasoning, and knowledgeable in Unix, QNX,
> and software engineering, why a separate directory is *critical* in the
> Hurd's design for its usability,
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Huh? Not at all. The fact is that Debian tracks the FHS, and
Thomas> the standards for adding a new top-level directory to Debian are
Thomas> "when the FHS says so", since our practice has always been to
Thomas> track the
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 06:08:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Well, the model most folks have followed is one similar to how mount
> operates in traditional unix. The namespace manager could only delegate
> a tree (or single file) to a single other process
Ah, so there was a single namespace
On 22 May 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Agreed. It's just a pity that the FHS will probably soon have added
> > /hurd without anybody ever having thought about some good, *general*
> > criteria when to add separate directories for binaries,
On 22 May 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It's your lack of understanding and knowledge of the Hurd. No big
> surprise there! What amazes me is that you think you're competent to
> try and solve, let alone understand design issues without actually
> understanding the design.
What amazes me
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > In every other MK system I've used these sorts of IPC connections could be
> > created by a process on it's own. So for instance on QNX you could just go
> > 'Fsys.ext2 /dev/... /mnt/foo &' and it would make it's own arrangements
> > with the names
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas> I think the answer to this question is: When FHS indicates they
> Thomas> should be added.
>
> Hmm. No, I don't think this is particularly helpful since, it seems,
> the FHS would only indicate that new directories be added if there is
> some rea
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "When do you think, *in general*, that new directories under /
>> *should* be created?"
Thomas> I think the answer to this question is: When FHS indicates they
Thomas> shoul
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. It's just a pity that the FHS will probably soon have added
> /hurd without anybody ever having thought about some good, *general*
> criteria when to add separate directories for binaries, which really
> could have been worthwile for reasons a
On 22 May 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "When do you think, *in general*, that new directories under /
> > *should* be created?"
>
> I think the answer to this question is: When FHS indicates they should
> be added.
Agreed. It's just a pity
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The FHS always talks about "commands" not "executables". A Hurd server is
> > not a "command" in the sense and spirit of the FHS.
>
> Neither is a window manager. If you look at sections "3.10 /sbin:
Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, but it's a bit of a pity IMHO that you bring this up when we're
> getting at what I thought was the heart of the matter, something that
> could be used to amend the Debian policy in a good, general way:
>
> "When do you think, *in general*, that
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:58:18PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > But while we're sticking to the FHS' *spirit* of {/,/usr}/bin as a
> > gathering place of *all* executables that can be useful to users,
>
> The FHS always talks about "commands" no
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:30:20AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > But I have a lot more trouble accepting false arguments, stated in a bit
> > arrogant, matter of fact way, backed up by little else but tradition and
> > personal authority.
> >
> >
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:53:34PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Well, if the hurd has retained the traditional microkernel design, what
> they call a translator really is just an ordinary process, like any other.
>
> The only distinction is that it has an IPC connection (this is what a port
> e
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:30:20AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> But I have a lot more trouble accepting false arguments, stated in a bit
> arrogant, matter of fact way, backed up by little else but tradition and
> personal authority.
>
> I'm mostly trying to provoke a line of thought that may
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:58:18PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> But while we're sticking to the FHS' *spirit* of {/,/usr}/bin as a
> gathering place of *all* executables that can be useful to users,
The FHS always talks about "commands" not "executables". A Hurd server is
not a "command" in t
On 22 May 2002, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> * Emile van Bergen writes:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> >> I thank you for your opinion on this, but we really have to move on.
>
> > You keep trying to blow a smo
* [Thomas Bushnell, BSG]
> This doesn't bother me, as long as C-c works. Can you verify that it
> does?
C-c makes cat go away. settrans -g also works well for removing the
passive translator afterwards.
Oystein
--
This message was generated by a horde of attack elephants armed with PRNGs.
Oystein Viggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Experiment:
>
> $ cp /hurd/null somedir/
> $ settrans somedir somedir/null
> $ cat somedir
>
> If translators within directories within translators worked, cat somedir
> would return nothing, just the same as cat /dev/null. On my system, cat
> would
Lars Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this also true for passive translators? Do they also not store the
> path to the translator executable (as I've thought until now) but a direct
> reference to the file instead? If so, what would happen if the translator
> is replaced by a newer version
Anthony Towns writes:
> It's not what the hack does that matters, it's the quality of it. If
> you don't leave time for it to be tested, there's no way I'm going to
> have faith in it.
And we are so far away from release that discussing now whether to do
such a hack is totally pointless.
--
T
Anthony Towns writes:
> *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.
Since we are so totally far away from it mattering, there
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > > I'm essentially asking the question: are those 'normal' programs indeed
> > > normal programs, in the sense of some image that is loaded or mapped
> > > into a separate address
* Hubert Chan writes:
>> "Emile" == Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
Emile> You could just as well argue that program that are primarily
Emile> intended to be ran from cron should be put somewhere other than
Emile> /bin, even though a user explicitly specifies himself th
> "Emile" == Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Emile> You could just as well argue that program that are primarily
Emile> intended to be ran from cron should be put somewhere other than
Emile> /bin, even though a user explicitly specifies himself that the
Emile> program must
* Emile van Bergen writes:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
>> I thank you for your opinion on this, but we really have to move on.
> You keep trying to blow a smoke screen around the architectural issue.
> I don't
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > I'm essentially asking the question: are those 'normal' programs indeed
> > normal programs, in the sense of some image that is loaded or mapped
> > into a separate address space, s
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:09:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:16:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
> > > Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are ava
* [Lars Weber]
> But if using `/lib/hurd to store translators for example would make it
> impossible (or at least difficult) to translate `/lib' with something like
> shadowfs/unionfs etc. then I thought this would be a reason that maybe
> everyone could accept...
That's a good point. Technical
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is one email on the list from somewhere in 2001 where Neal
> explains the difference of the execution context of passive and active
> translators, if you are really that interested, it would be easy to dig
> that out, contact me privately.
Thanks
Oystein Viggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There might be some tricks I don't know of to make this work also for
> passive translators, but currently, it does not seem to work "out of the
> box". I can't think of any situation where this would be particularly
> useful, anyway.
The main reason I
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> The [Hurd] operates with almost everything in user-space. This makes the
> more secure. Running a lot of things in user-space is actually what
> every modern operating system does (and unix is not modern, it's 30
Yes, but that's almost completely unr
* [Marcus Brinkmann]
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:59:37PM +0200, Lars Weber wrote:
>> Is this also true for passive translators? Do they also not store the
>> path to the translator executable (as I've thought until now) but a direct
>> reference to the file instead? If so, what would happen if
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:10:20AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Actually, it's that everyone's found the Linux kernel does provide a sane
> > and stable external interface.
> First time I hear someone saying that. Talked to Ulrich Drepper
> recently? (Just to pick someone who really relies
SpyderMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I take it from what you write here that Debian GNU/Hurd is not the
> 'official' version, simply a distro of an official version. Where is
> this official version? CVS? alpha.gnu.org?
An approximate definition of "The official GNU Hurd" is what's in the
HE
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:54:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I've had too many examples of people (myself included) looking at the
> code and being absolutely sure something will work obviously, and then
> being proven wrong.
Obviously if I were to do that, I would do some primitive testing if
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:50:16AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> >On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >>Al those features are useful. Nobody is claiming that the Hurd shouldn't
> >>have these features, or shouldn't have firewall features. T
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:59:37PM +0200, Lars Weber wrote:
> Is this also true for passive translators? Do they also not store the
> path to the translator executable (as I've thought until now) but a direct
> reference to the file instead? If so, what would happen if the translator
> is replace
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:07:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And yes, I consider requiring Debian operating systems to have firewalling
> tools available to be in aid of that goal. That's not something new
> I've just thought up to be annoying to the Hurd people because it's the
> flamewar du j
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:35:13AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:11:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's not what the hack does that matters, it's the quality of it. If
> > you don't leave time for it to be tested, there's no way I'm going to
> > have faith in it.
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:29:24PM +0200, Lars Weber wrote:
> > All this talk about reasons for using `/hurd' got me wondering: Do there
> > exist potential problems when a translator that translates a certain
> > directory is itself located somewhere i
Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Al those features are useful. Nobody is claiming that the Hurd shouldn't
have these features, or shouldn't have firewall features. The Hurd should
have everything anybody ever wants ;)
By first reading this I
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:31:56PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Look at this. A lot of programs that reside in /bin make no sense to
> users who do not know how to run them, i.e. who do not know what
> arguments (or prefix, in your case settrans) to supply. But they still
> are in /bin
There a
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:43:44PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> I'm essentially asking the question: are those 'normal' programs indeed
> normal programs, in the sense of some image that is loaded or mapped
> into a separate address space, specifying a single point of entry (being
> allowed to
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:09:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:58:05PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > By first reading this I agreed with you. After pondering about this
> > issue I claim that the Hurd should not have IP filtering features.
>
> I think you are nut
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:11:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's not what the hack does that matters, it's the quality of it. If
> you don't leave time for it to be tested, there's no way I'm going to
> have faith in it.
Have you read what I was talking about? The code is the original
ipchai
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:08:31PM +0200, SpyderMan wrote:
> Ok, you got me lost here. (I've been trying to follow the reasoned
> arguements (and the others :) ) from both sides - honest :) )
>
> Somebody (Jeroen IIRC) saying that dozens or more distros of GNU/Hurd
> (or whatever) was not the w
* Anthony Towns writes:
> 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.
And a usable, stable operating system by your definition is one that
has firewall tools? Please, there are far
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:11:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> To reiterate: don't leave thinking about this or doing it (or any of
> the other things that make the Hurd unreleasable) until the next
> freeze. If you're prioritising other things above release
> requirements, that's your choice,
* SpyderMan writes:
> If there exists a 'GNU/Hurd' other than Debian, why the debate over
> Debian release demands? If not, why the worry about Debian GNU/Hurd
> becoming incompatible.
Because someone, in this case Marcus, will have to keep two different
versions supported. I doubt that anyone
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:51:16AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Then don't bother doing it. If the quick hack's no better than no
> > firewall, it obviously isn't going to satisfy me.
> I wonder how you can know it, because you
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:58:05PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> By first reading this I agreed with you. After pondering about this
> issue I claim that the Hurd should not have IP filtering features.
I think you are nuts. Firewalling is just a small part of a much
grander scheme, which involve
8<
Because you already said that ipchains is fine with you, I was reasonably
sure that it would be good enough from your point of view, although with
my GNU/Hurd developer hat on I am totally opposed to doing this.
This is because this will make Debian GNU/Hurd incompatible with
GNU/Hurd, and this
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > People also regularly use "firewalling" features to do things that
> > aren't really security related. I see people using IP filtering in
> > combination with ro
Hi,
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:31:56PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > > 'You don't want them to be visible in /bin because running them on the
> > > command line the normal way fails with "M
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Then don't bother doing it. If the quick hack's no better than no
> firewall, it obviously isn't going to satisfy me.
I wonder how you can know it, because you neither know what I am
satisfied with, nor how the quick hack would look
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you might never release. *shrug*
>
> Why do you think that the Hurd depends on Debian?
At the moment, it does to some degree. The Hurd and GNU/Hurd certainly
benefit a lot from being in Debian. Please don't forget about that. But
of course we cou
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
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:33:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:43:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
> > > Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
> > > Debian
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:15:07AM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
> And obviously if Debian is
> somehow not meeting the needs of the community, some other HURD
> distribution is free to arise.
FYI: This is already happening just because of this. At the moment I'm busy
specifying how this should look
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:31:56PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 08:13:37PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:41:19AM +0200, Wolfgang J?hrling wrote:
> > > > Of course you do, because you don't un
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:52:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:24:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > *shrug* I'm unlikely to consider a quick hack done at the very last
> > > minute a reliable firewalling tool.
> > You don't know what I mean, so you could at leas
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:24:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > *shrug* I'm unlikely to consider a quick hack done at the very last
> > minute a reliable firewalling tool.
> You don't know what I mean, so you could at least try to find out what I
> mean first or spare your judgement until it
Hi,
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 08:13:37PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:41:19AM +0200, Wolfgang Jährling wrote:
> > > Of course you do, because you don't understand what /hurd is about. It
> > > is about the Hurd server bina
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:27:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > > He's out of date WRT current practice. And some networks have more than
> > > one gateway, in
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:07:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
It has had a real release, and the only reason that there haven't been other
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:15:07AM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Exactly. The problem is that if Hurd releases without firewalling tools
> > we haven't allowed our users to make this choice.
> Right... but the one problem with this argument is that it co
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > 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 alr
Anthony Towns writes:
> The problem is that if Hurd releases without firewalling tools we haven't
> allowed our users to make this choice.
If the Debian/Hurd doesn't release at all then by your definition
there are no choices.
I'm not putting this forward as a reason to release (I don't know
ne
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Exactly. The problem is that if Hurd releases without firewalling tools
> we haven't allowed our users to make this choice.
Right... but the one problem with this argument is that it could be
applied to any feature. You could say that, unless we rele
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
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 fi
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:43:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
> > Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
> > Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
> I think that it
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:09:08PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> > He's out of date WRT current practice. And some networks have more than
> > one gateway, in which case it can be desirable to administer on the
> > hosts with th
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
