Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:10:36 -0500 From: Mark Woodson <mwoodson@bacxs.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020130220527.02973650@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <20020130172655.GA1216@raggedclown.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020129214601.02281df8@127.0.0.1> <15447.22597.666281.179771@guru.mired.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020129214601.02281df8@127.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:26 PM 1/30/2002 +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote: >On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:49:11PM -0500, Mark Woodson wrote: > > 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. > > >And people make smart-arse remarks like yours, thinking that qualifies >as some kind of answer. And some people don't actually read what they respond to. I don't feel that the current system needs changing. It's my thought that if you go to the extra trouble of compiling ipfw or ipf into the kernel, then you want it and you get it. No matter what you've set in rc.conf. Perhaps the docs should be modified to make that behavior more clear, but if you have a machine set up as a firewall having it's functionality as a firewall eliminated by setting enable="NO" is unacceptable from a security standpoint. -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?5.1.0.14.0.20020130220527.02973650>