Subject: Re: Any resolution for LKM issues?
To: Greywolf , gabriel rosenkoetter <>
From: Henry B. Hotz <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/15/2001 18:37:08
At 12:54 PM -0800 3/15/01, Greywolf wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
># Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:15:54 -0500
># From: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
># To:,
># Subject: Any resolution for LKM issues?
># Disregarding entirely the background of why I want them, considering
># the conversation devolved into a discussion strictly of that last
># time, rather than how to make a basic function for development of
># OS-related stuff work on one of our ports:
>Regarding this, and knowing the opinions of several self-described
>security pundits and the like, I view LKMs as rather useful creatures,
>and would like to see approaches on how to make it work instead of
>the constant questioning of "Why do you want to do that?"  "BECAUSE
>I WANT TO LOAD A @#($#@ LKM, THAT'S WHY!".  Knowledge.  The ability
>to do something in a different manner.  We didn't come this far by telling
>the user "You don't need to know how to do this" (at least mostly).

I know that "me too" messages are bad form, but "me too".  I think 
the fact that LKM's may be a bad idea in some situations is not a 
reason to avoid discussion of how to make them work as intended.

Wish I could help.

Signature held pending an ISO 9000 compliant
signature design and approval process., or