g to be mean, but if you don't read the docs, you deserve
> the problems you get.
Ah yes, another jumper-on to the RTFM and the "you get what you
deserve" bandwagon. The only small problem your argument is that when telling
someone to RTFM, it's usually a good idea to mak
enough to enable it so it needs to be done for them
regardless.]
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Co
to avoid speaking
in absolutes. In any case, do you believe that there are thousands of
people out there running systems in the particular fashion you describe
above?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patr
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Bob K wrote:
> > > The problem is that you're not taking into account the installed base of
> > > users who twiddle this knob. How many angry fire
firewall_enable to no)
is relatively small.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
All the documentation reading in the world isn't going to make me think it's a
good idea to have "no" mean "yes" and I certainly don't think it's useful or
helpful to cast aspersions on individuals who want "no" to actually mean "no.
kernel.
> >
> > Anyone else noticed that?
>
> Not me. Mine still works ok.
I updated to the latest -stable two days ago and everything looks good
here as well too.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patric
