Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 07:25:31AM +0000, Michael van Elst wrote:
> tls%panix.com@localhost (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
> 
> >On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 07:12:42AM +0200, Michael van Elst wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 06:54:14PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> 
> >> > If I'm concerned about the possibility of configuring a system daemon
> >> > in such a dangerous way, I can remove it -- or elsewise pin down its
> >> > configuration.
> >> 
> >> Like the system daemon /bin/sh or is just inetd evil ?
> 
> >Thank you for strategically cutting and pasting my text in order to
> >remove any semblance of meaning.
> 
> Actually that's exactly your statement. Moving scripts out of the

Sure -- those are some of the words I said.

As I pointed out in the text you snipped, and saw little purpose to
pointing out a second time in my second response (since, after all,
what's the point, if you're just going to snip it again) interpreter
input for a Turing-complete programming language just falls into a whole
different category than configuration for a daemon with a constrained
set of operations -- that is, input for an interpreter which is *not*
an interpreter for a Turing-complete language.

If you want to call that "rhetoric", be my guest.  I do not think it
is too unusual, however, to draw a distinction between the analysis
of programs in Turing-complete languages and programs in other kinds
of configuration languages.

Thor