On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 16:46:28 +0200, Lubomir Sedlacik writes:
>On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:09:35PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>> a/ my setup predates this by a couple of years.
>
>why wasn't it committed?  this reinventing of a wheel wouldn't be
>necessary..

Sorry, we contribute lots of stuff back, but not everything, and often
by the time I can talk about it - others have come up with the same
idea.

>> c/ my current setup makes it simpler to document the states that the
>>    system can be in - helps when being validated for FIPS and common
>>    criteria.   Simple is good.
>
>this is something i can agree with.  althought i still think matt's
>design is superior, it has a head and a tail, while yours is just "run
>ahead and burn all the bridges behind us".

My contention is that "burn the bridges as you go" is better - for my
purpose at least.

--sjg