From owner-freebsd-security Mon Feb 8 00:45:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA04463 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:45:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from atdot.dotat.org (atdot.dotat.org [203.23.150.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA04454 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:45:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from newton@atdot.dotat.org) Received: (from newton@localhost) by atdot.dotat.org (8.9.2/8.7) id TAA14205; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:14:07 +1030 (CST) From: Mark Newton Message-Id: <199902080844.TAA14205@atdot.dotat.org> Subject: Re: TCPdump To: smelekov@vniigazmain.gazprom.ru (Serguei V. Melekhov) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 19:14:07 +1030 (CST) Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <36BE9C67.2F79B121@vniigazmain.gazprom.ru> from "Serguei V. Melekhov" at Feb 8, 99 11:12:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Serguei V. Melekhov wrote: > I vote 'NO'. We shouldn't let someone install bsd with default > bpf enabled option. Cause alot of lamers don't even know what r they > doing. How many of us here remember the criticism Sun used to get with SunOS 4.x because the nit device was enabled by default? I repeat my earlier suggestion: provide a "kernel" distribution containing GENERIC kernels tuned for different purposes. Let the user decide whether they get bpf by default. - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton@atdot.dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1958-3414 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83034403 ----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message