Subject: Re: kern.showallprocs implementation
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@NetBSD.org>
Date: 08/30/2005 00:59:27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On 2005.08.29 15:24:09 +0000, Bill Studenmund wrote:
| On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:03:59PM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
| > I prefer:
| > security.bsd.*
| > And no variables_like_this_one. It's ugly, IMHO.
| Part of the reason I suggested using the FreeBSD names is that no names=
| jump out at me as the best name to use. So in cases of indecision, go wit=
| prior art. :-)
| If the consensus is that variables_like_this_one are ugly, then that is a=
| reason for a different name. Is it a sufficent reason to be different fro=
| prior art? Not sure. I will however not argue the point.
| > | Also, I am partially enamored of what FreeBSD has done with the naming
| > | here. They are indicating. with the "bsd" node under "security", that
| > | these controls/status are part of the "bsd" security model. Yes, "uni=
| > | could have been used, as well as "uid/gid" (but that seems unwieldy).=
| > | we leave space for future models, which our discussions indicate may =
| > | be coming (well, I hope so :-). [...]
| > I agree. FreeBSD folks have security.bsd.* and security.jail.* and that
| > seems to be well organized:
| > security.<framework>.<option>
| > Also, Elad's code works perfectly after my netstat(1) changes, so we ha=
| > 1) working code; 2) a discussion on which sysctl variable to use;
| > 2) should end ASAP!
| So then what name do you propose? security.bsd.?
-- Rui Paulo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----