Subject: Re: kern.showallprocs implementation
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com>
Date: 08/30/2005 18:33:31
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:18:17AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> Bottom line is that these features are not any ``BSD security model''
> that was discussed; it's a collection of commonly requested features
> as implemented in FreeBSD. I see no reason to keep any compatibility.
> i think more importantly these are arguments that keeping
> compatibility is bad. the `bsd' subnode is confusing and
> for this reason we shouldn't use it.
I strongly agree. I do not think that FreeBSD provides, in general, a
sufficiently good example of sysctl naming nor of security design nor
functionality that we should hesitate to go our own way in either regard.
Thor Lancelot Simon firstname.lastname@example.org
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky