In article <19b5c128-7725-0638-67f8-749532353...@m00nbsd.net>, Maxime Villard <m...@m00nbsd.net> wrote: > >So is making the system vulnerable by default with marginal features. The >system is broken now. All you had to do is one sysctl; but that takes too much >time, and you're probably too busy handling serious business like debating >about your favorite hitler quotes.
The problem is that nothing is black and white: 1. You probably don't use the feature most of the time, others might. [this determines how marginal the feature is] 2. How critical are the bugs, how easy it is to find them all? For example, are there similar bugs in other places in the system; do we disable those parts? [security vs usability] Here you unilateraly made a decision to disable a feature that was previously enabled. Regardless if the decision was correct or incorrect, you made a determination based on your assessment and affected not only yourself, but everyone else using the system. Such decisions should be made by consensus not by force. It is a different story if there was a critical bug that could not be fixed, so the feature had to be disabled for safety. Here we are talking about a feature that was enabled for a long time, and was disabled without enough prior discussion. I understand we perhaps are not moving fast enough or making decisions fast enough, but process needs to be followed otherwise everyone is unhappy with the results. christos
