Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:15:43 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1012709743.1d5fe6@mired.org> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <15446.8687.379406.482030@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <15445.44102.288461.155113@caddis.yogotech.com> References: <200201271757.g0RHvTF12944@midway.uchicago.edu> <1617.216.153.202.59.1012240332.squirrel@www1.27in.tv> <20020128192930.GA86720@student.uu.se> <15445.44102.288461.155113@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> types: > > Note that "do not enable firewall" (which is implied by firewall_enable="NO") > > is *not* equivalent to "disable firewall". > Maybe we're having an English language question. I'd say you are. > If something isn't enabled, doesn't that imply that it's disabled? Last > I checked, enabled/disabled were binary operations. No. Failing to enable something doesn't mean that you disable it. Those are both actions. It's also possible that to take no action whatsoever. Tanya Harding disabled Nancy Kerrigan. Nobody else in the world disabled her. By your logic, they all must therefore have enabled her, which clearly isn't the case. Most of them did nothing. A small number of people did the things necessary to enable her to skate again. That said, I don't really have an objection to changing the variable name, or making it tristated, or some such to avoid this confusion. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15446.8687.379406.482030>