From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 6 23:45:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA07955 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:45:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.camalott.com (root@mail.camalott.com [208.203.140.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA07937 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:45:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joelh@gnu.org) Received: from detlev.UUCP (tex-42.camalott.com [208.229.74.42]) by mail.camalott.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA15059; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:45:35 -0500 Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA11011; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:43:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from joelh) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:43:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199807070643.BAA11011@detlev.UUCP> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com CC: smoergrd@oslo.geco-prakla.slb.com, tarkhil@asteroid.svib.ru, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <27823.899790700@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com) Subject: Re: xf86OpenConsole: KDENABIO failed (Operation not permitted) From: Joel Ray Holveck References: <27823.899790700@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> 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