Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:36:16 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Firewalls Message-ID: <20161209193616.63c71b3c.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612090900340.26768@wonkity.com> References: <5bed7716cd0c9f56e7fe73e86d0cde45.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612071450340.5616@wonkity.com> <CAO%2BPfDeU%2BMxPKH_rXT3CzEvieb2nk4BV_6hj4mWuJ=NyhJ0dsg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612090900340.26768@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:03:38 -0700 (MST), Warren Block wrote: > Personally, I'd rather have a system where the firewalls were > modular and did not have to be in the base. Then we could have only one > in base, which would probably be IPFW, and others could be installed > from ports. (Yes, this is non-trivial.) A situation similar to sendmail or lpr would be nice: A functional component is included in the base system, but the user can still choose to install an alternative from ports and use that instead if he wishes _not_ to use the component supplied with the OS. That doesn't make it less non-trivial, but more appealing. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161209193616.63c71b3c.freebsd>