Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:53:42 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: C J Michaels <cjm2@earthling.net>, charon@seektruth.org, dsyphers@uchicago.edu, imp@village.org, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <15445.44102.288461.155113@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020128192930.GA86720@student.uu.se> References: <200201271757.g0RHvTF12944@midway.uchicago.edu> <1617.216.153.202.59.1012240332.squirrel@www1.27in.tv> <20020128192930.GA86720@student.uu.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Note that "do not enable firewall" (which is implied by firewall_enable="NO") > is *not* equivalent to "disable firewall". Maybe we're having an English language question. If something isn't enabled, doesn't that imply that it's disabled? Last I checked, enabled/disabled were binary operations. If I enable the clutch in my car, my car moves (assuming it's in gear). If I disable it, the power is no longer going to the drive wheels. It's either enabled or disabled. There is no 'in-between' state. (Well, unless you're riding the clutch, but that's not considered a valid state, since the behavior is undefined, as well as bad for your clutch. :) Nate 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?15445.44102.288461.155113>