Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:14:05 -0800 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: juha@saarinen.org, n@nectar.cc, drosih@rpi.edu, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed Solution To Recent "firewall_enable" Thread. [PleaseRead] Message-ID: <3C595F3D.ABABF5F@tenebras.com> References: <20020130225454.A48040@hellblazer.nectar.cc> <Pine.WNT.4.43.0201311802320.1208-100000@den2> <20020130.225658.74795701.imp@village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All: I have read this thread (okay, stream -- no, roaring river) with interest and a little amusement at the occasional ad hominem. I have some observations: 1) It is natural for people to suggest that things be changed rather than invest the requisite time to understand how they work. I have found myself doing this from time to time. 2) Many things are counter-intuitive until they're mastered. Sometimes this is a fault of documentation rather than function. And sometimes the explanation for design choices has a historical rather than a theoretical foundation. 3) Changes that break existing behavior need an extremely compelling justification. I would place the arguments I've read in favor of change in the category of feature enhancement. Therefore, if additional function is to be provided, it must not change the semantics of existing "knobs." Those are my thoughts on the matter. 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?3C595F3D.ABABF5F>