Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:17:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: djr@saa-cons.co.uk (Dave Roberts) Cc: Firewalls@GreatCircle.COM, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: Solaris2.5 and BSD* - Facts Message-ID: <199604111317.PAA05057@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91.960410115650.40704A-100000@haddock.saa-cons.co.uk> from "Dave Roberts" at Apr 10, 96 11:58:52 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Dave Roberts wrote: > AFAIK, the facts stand as follows (please corrent me if I am wrong). > BSD offers the immutable flag - Solaris does not. > BSD gives me source code - Solaris does not. > BSD allows me to compile stuff (ls etc) with static libs - Solaris does > not (if I remember a thread a while ago). > > That's all I can think of. Please don't mail back with arguments about > having source code or not, or static libraries vs dynamic, think those > have been beaten to death :) Sorry for bothering you again with the ``there's source code'' argument. After listening to a talk about firewalls at the last GUUG (German Unix Users Group) Sprint Meeting, i realized that kernel source is also interesting to have. You can remove all the security related ``extras'' in the kernel (IP forwarding, IP source routing, log connection attempts, ...) if you've got the source. And yes, _remove_, with vi in the source. This cannot be enabled again via an MIB variable. :-) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604111317.PAA05057>