Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:07:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: papowell@astart.com, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006271254050.26405-100000@dt052n3e.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <200006271754.LAA47455@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <3958D9DC.DA75504E@gorean.org> Doug Barton writes:
> : A point which I readily concede. My question is, should we be working
> : to make it more free, or adding more software that makes it less free?
>
> You have this point.
<SouthernDrawl>Wha, thank you saaaahhh</SouthernDrawl> :)
> I've spent about 50 hours looking at relatively simple patches to
> lpr/lpd to make sure they had no security implications. Turns out
> they did and it wasn't obvious at first. I guess that's my motivator.
*Nod* I had a feeling that part of your motivation came from your
security officer hat, but I wouldn't have pointed that out if you hadn't
volunteered it.
> : I can't comment authoritatively on this, except to say that we do have
> : volunteers willing (and apparently able) to hack on what we have. I
> : would like to see them have the opportunity.
>
> Yes. And 3/4 of the tmie I get patches, I have to reject them because
> they introduce an inintended side effect that generally has security
> implications.
That's why you 'da man! :) The more I learn about C, and trying
to make unix apps secure the more amazed I get. If I may, I think that
while on the one hand having someone else responsible for the
"maintenance" of the lp* code relieve some of this burden, at the same
time it introduces a number of new ones. I'm not qualified to say whether
there is a profit on either side of the equation (that's really your
call) but we're not eliminating a class of problems, just substituting
them.
> : You have left out the philosophical point. I think it's obvious that
> : you don't see that as important (or important enough), but there are
> : some of us who do. Perhaps in the end that's not enough of a reason to
> : keep it out. I just personally feel that this would be a move in the
> : wrong direction.
>
> I actually had missed that point in my zeal.
Yeah, thence my surprise. This is one of the problems with the GNU
philosophy... it all _sounds_ like a good idea, till you read the fine
print. I remember when I first started looking at that stuff, back in my
OS/2 days. Even the name is clever, "Artistic License." That's good
stuff. Although I have to say, "General Public Virus/GPV" is the funniest
software-related thing I've heard in a while...
Doug
--
"Live free or die"
- State motto of my ancestral homeland, New Hampshire
Do YOU Yahoo!?
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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006271254050.26405-100000>