Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 20:10:06 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Pascal Hofstee <daeron@Wit401305.student.utwente.nl>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softupdates in latest build? Message-ID: <v04205530b3f9b0adf969@[195.238.1.121]> In-Reply-To: <37D3FD16.F976D8A8@gorean.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909061421050.6342-100000@shadowmere.student.utwente.nl> <v04205526b3f9964ac159@[195.238.1.121]> <37D3FD16.F976D8A8@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:42 AM -0700 1999/9/6, Doug wrote: > Please don't cross post to -questions and -stable. If your issue is > pertinent to -stable you should post it there. Sorry. I'll try to keep this in mind for any future posts I may (or may not) make. > You should always make the new kernel before rebooting. Changes between > kernel and userland can cause you big problems. Hmm. You're absolutely correct. Re-reading <http://www.nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk/FreeBSD/make-world/make-world .html>, I see that I did things in the wrong order. Thanks! > Someone else already mentioned that if you expect to track -stable you > need to read the list. As I said before, I wasn't planning on tracking -STABLE (and certainly not -CURRENT, although that choice was apparently made for me without my knowledge). I had tried to monitor the list as best I could for the past few weeks, and keeping an eye out for those things I know I'm interested in or which might be likely to affect any systems I try to build. I believe that I made a reasonable attempt to follow the handbook, read the FAQ, monitor the mailing list, etc.... However, requiring omniscience of every person who ever wants to post to any of the mailing lists is a method that is likely to ensure that most everyone decides it's just not worth the hassle. Myself, I had more than enough crap during the Great Backbone Cabal wars. I have zero need to put up with any more. > This has been discussed to death already, and the > only risk it opens up is for those whose machines have already had a root > compromise. The feeling is that if you're already that far down the road, > the person can enable bpf if they really want it. I agree with this sentiment -- enable it if you need it. However, it should come disabled by default. If you need it, then you'll know that you need it (or you'll be told), and you will either know how to enable it or you'll be told how to enable it. > I hope that this is a joke, but just in case it isn't, the copyright > _clearly_ states that the software is provided AS IS. You assume _all_ > responsibility for its use, misuse, abuse, reuse, and any other kind of use > you can think of. See my previous message. This doesn't mean a hill of beans. However, let's completely ignore the legal aspect for the moment. Let's just focus on one thing and one thing only -- We're violating rule #1 of Checkwick & Bellovin fer Christsakes! if you don't need something, don't run it! -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ____________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be> Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04205530b3f9b0adf969>