From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 10 23:45:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA16460 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 23:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA16449 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id GAA01905; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 06:44:59 GMT Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:44:59 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Joerg Wunsch cc: FreeBSD hackers Subject: Re: kern_mib.c:int securelevel = -1; In-Reply-To: <199608100845.KAA07623@uriah.heep.sax.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, J Wunsch wrote: > As Michael Hancock wrote: > > > Please use INSECURE to be consistent with BSD/OS and NetBSD. I'm for > > names in code that are black and white. The man pages can describe the > > gray areas in the bugs or caveats section. > > ...and make it a default option. Otherwise, people with typical > workstations running Xservers will jump at us. The comment in LINT > and GENERIC _must_ mention this, or the amount of support replies we > have to send out will increase drastically. I'm all for making it the default too. I guess there will be a period of "I can't write to xxx, why?" with "Didn't you read current, damn it?" responses that we'd have to go through. Otherwise it will probably become a long forgotten feature. Mike Hancock