Re: Removing PF

[Stephen Borrill <netbsd%precedence.co.uk@localhost>]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Le 30/03/2019 à 08:51, Michael van Elst a écrit :
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:17:44AM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > > Le 30/03/2019 à 08:07, Michael van Elst a écrit :
> > > > max%m00nbsd.net@localhost (Maxime Villard) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > If the effort hadn't been split on three firewalls in the last 10 years, 
> > > > > but
> > > > > rather had been focused on only one, don't you think NPF would now be
> > > > > featureful?
> > > >
> > > > Now if the effort of the world hadn't been split among Windows, MacOS
> > > > and Linux, but rather had been focused on only NetBSD, don't you think
> > > > NetBSD would now be featureful ?
> > >
> > > Yes, if the effort had been on one firewall instead of three, the one
> > > chosen would be more functional. Period. You have absolutely no point,
> > > do you?
> >
> > You just don't understand the point. Period. Hey, I said Period, it must
> > be true.
> >
> > Do you believe people would give up their efforts on Windows, or
> > MacOS or Linux to focus on NetBSD ?
> >
> > Ah, silly me, too abstract. Do you really believe the maintainers
> > of ipf and npf would give up their projects to work on pf ?
>
> Ah because there are maintainers of ipf? There is _no_ maintainer of ipf
> whatsoever. Do you understand, or not? Give me a list of people who maintain
> ipf. Just like, give me a list of people who maintain pf in NetBSD.

Your two statements are mutually inconsistent:

1) No-one is maintaining ipf or pf
and
2) If the effort had been on one firewall instead of three, the one chosen 
would be more functional.

--
Stephen