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	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
 abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."		- Noam Chomsky