[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ipf



I am just saying that bickering and pissing like this is not good for the OpenBSD/Open
Source image, sure people who switch are stupid, blah blah blah. But you have to remember
that the people who control the purse strings and the decision making abilities in large
companies are not the most tech savvy, and they see these little "hackers" arguing over
licensing and go somewhere a bit more stable. Logical or not this is not a good political
move, in other words it looks bad to people on the outside. Any body know a good spin
doctor, cause OpenBSD needs one.

InSaNe wrote:

> People can still download and install IPF.  It isn't that difficult.  It
> is just no in the source or shipped with it due to licensing reasons, that
> doesn't stop someone like you from downloading and installing it.  A small
> inconvienience.
>
> If IPF being removed makes anyone switch from OpenBSD, then I consider
> that person an idiot, I don't want to use IPF anymore because of the
> license either.
>
> > Sure security permeates the OS, but the fact that you had the most secure OS, and a
> > damn nice stateful packet filter in one package was what made OpenBSD for me, guess
> > I can't speak for everyone.
> >
> > William Yodlowsky wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:18:28PM -0500, John Vernier Simon wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > well the few spoil the cream for the many. Hopefully everyone will come to
> > > > their senses and Theo will put the source back, as IPF was a really big chunk
> > > > of OpenBSD's great security.
> > >
> > > Um, no, the security permeates the OS.  This was only an IP filter +
> > > NAT.