Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:38:28 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf Message-ID: <200010121438.e9CEcoT09283@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:25:20 EDT." <v04210100b60aa17e4957@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <v04210100b60aa17e4957@[128.113.24.47]>, Garance A Drosihn writes: > At 12:06 AM +0200 10/12/00, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >Matt Dillon writes: > > > > > I really have to take exception to such an idiotic posting > > > by Poul, who seems to be trying to put words in my mouth > > > that I have not said... in fact, Poul knows very well that > > > I am not advocating an OpenBSD-style position. He also knows > > > very well that I am not the type of person to take such > > > remarks sitting down. > > > >What you are advocating is in fact a almost total word-for-word > >repetition of the OpenBSD policy. > > > >You can stand up or sit down as you please, I don't care. > > Why are people (both sides) so worked up about this? > > It is clear we do NOT have universal agreement on disabling telnetd, > so why can't we just pick some middle ground and do something "more > secure" than what we have been doing, see how that works, and think > about disabling telnetd by default in some later release? Why MUST > we fight to the death about it right this minute? > > A few days ago I tried a proposal which seemed like a plausible > idea to me. As near as I can tell, no one feels like even > replying to that idea. Not to say "good idea", not to say > "stupid idea, it doesn't go far enough". I am not among the > people who have dug in their heels to fight, so apparently it > wasn't interesting enough to comment on. > > I do not understand the vitriol in this thread. My guess > is that this is now more about personality clashes instead of > any reasoned debate by people using their brains. Everyone > is pissing in everyone else's cereal, and the result is not > very interesting. We've had this argument about two weeks ago on -security and about three weeks ago on this list. No one is advocating removing any binaries. As discussed in this or one of the previous threads, if sysinstall asks a question before commencing with customisation, then there is no default, just a fork. Doesn't this satisfy both camps? I on the other hand do understand the vitriol in this thread. I've been there and I done that -- it doesn't work. Trust me, religious arguments like this can lead to divorce and divorce is very painful indeed. Divorce in any form, whether it be in personal life or in project life, it can be destructive to one's or a project's well being. I can see how stupid I appeared arguing for one extreme or another on these lists just by watching this argument from the sidelines. A good friend told me that the key to a good marriage (I see this project as a marriage) is compromise. The compromise I see is that we don't have to call it a default. It's just a fork in the road. One road leads to locked down the other takes the "open" path. Just two simple choices, neither being the default. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010121438.e9CEcoT09283>