Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:43:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: smoergrd@oslo.geco-prakla.slb.com, tarkhil@asteroid.svib.ru, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xf86OpenConsole: KDENABIO failed (Operation not permitted) Message-ID: <199807070643.BAA11011@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <27823.899790700@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com) References: <27823.899790700@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Now, will everybody please quit telling me why it exists, or why a fix
>> is nontrivial? (If anybody thinks that not being able to run X when
>> securelevel > 1 is the Right Thing, I would be happy to continue
>> discussion.)
> Erm, but what did you expect? Calling it a bug without attaching a
> fix is one of the most useless activities imaginable
Woah, wait a sec. I was *answering a question*. If I need to either
attach a fix or call it a feature, then we need to consider our
terminology. I was *not* asking for it to be fixed. (I generally
try not to ask for fixes; I send patches.) I was *not* saying that
BSD / FreeBSD / XFree86 / securelevel or anything is evil because of
this issue.
What I was doing was *answering a question*. To be precise, from
message ID <199807060816.MAA27917@minas-tirith.pol.ru>:
> Hmm... WHY X cannot be started with securelevel set? Is it a bug or
> a feature?
I will answer questions. I consider answering questions useful. I
see this, for a variety of reasons, as a bug. It's a bug dealing with
the x86 architecture design, but I can't see how it could seriously be
construed as a feature. I saw a question. I answered it. That is
why I considered the activity useful. (I don't know why I find
continuing this thread useful, and will probably cease to do so RSN.)
> since the folks who are capable of "fixing" it already know why it's
> there and what the trade-offs are, so you're only going to get lots
> of the above from them ("this is why it exists, this is why a fix is
> non-trivial").
Apologies for wasting said folks' time. I suppose I should have made
my opinion known in private email, instead of on the lists.
> Those who aren't capable of fixing it aren't going to contribute much
> that's useful to the discussion either except for lots of "yeah! why
> does it work that way? Somebody should do something! I'm going to
> write my congressman!" :-)
That's why I'm glad that 'd' is on the home row.
> Truly, standing up on a soapbox and calling it a bug is Not Useful and
> has already been done before by a succession of previous soapbox
> orators (check out the OpenBSD mailing lists sometime for a whole
> book's worth of material on the topic). Suggesting some real,
> tangible approach to dealing with it would be a welcome switch from
> the usual.
I see more soapbox speeches than I can conveniently conceive of
shaking a stick at. In everything I do, be that BSD or SCA. I have
gotten into the habit of ignoring them and going on about life. I was
not making a soapbox speech (or, if I was, I didn't realize it). I
was not saying it should be fixed. In fact, if I didn't outright
state it, I implied that it's not worth the time.
And it's definately not worth the time for us to discuss the futility
of bringing up problems without fixes. I know it, you know it, my
ferrets are rapidly learning, I'm sure a few of your cats can recite a
speech on it by now.
Now, let's kindly let this die. I've got some hacking to do.
Best,
joelh
--
Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807070643.BAA11011>