Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 21:49:11 -0500 From: Mark Woodson <mwoodson@bacxs.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1012789189.18a176@mired.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020129214601.02281df8@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <15447.22597.666281.179771@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:19 PM 1/29/2002 -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: >I was going to say non-intuitive, since everyone likes slinging that >one around, but remembered what someone who knows more than a few >things about interface design had to say about "intuitive" interfaces: > > When users say that an interface is intuitive, they mean that it > operates just like some other software or method with which they > are familiar.[*] People mock that which they do not understand. >Personally, I think that not taking an action is not the same thing as >taking the opposite of that action, and that people who change the >options in the kernel should know what those options do, and if they >can't find out from the documentation, they should ask. So simply >expanding the documentation and comments will solve the problem. I'd >rather commit a PR that does that than argue about what "not enabling" >means. If you enable ipfw or ipf in the kernel, god help you if you don't know what you are doing. If you've gone to that trouble, the firewall should not be disabled by setting enable_firewall or enable_ipf for that matter to "NO". Can this thread die now? -Mark 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?5.1.0.14.0.20020129214601.02281df8>