On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/16/2011 08:06 PM, Peggy Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> The annoucement suggests that a major reason for dropping support is
>> that it is "confusing" to end users. An easy solution to that is to
>> make a default hosts.allow file that says "ALL : ALL : ALLOW" out of
>> the box. Then those of use wanting to simply restrict access (useful
>> in many scenarios) can change that default as needed.
>>
>
> i read the news entry couples of times and I don't get it how you reach this
> conclusion. Really, this is not the reason and I found your comment
> hilarious.
I was referring to this:
"Additionally, newer daemons and applications are inconsistent in
their support for libwrap, leading to confusion as to whether an
application supports the library."
This is true, it is confusing. My response was to say, well, change
the default config then, and that criticism won't carry the same
impact. (To be honest I have no idea what Arch's default config is
for /etc/hosts.{allow|deny} because I edit it within minutes of a new
install, but it seems that if it were default allow for ALL then it
wouldn't cause as much trouble for people who wonder why sshd or
whatever isn't working...)
> users who want this feature can as well recompile the desire services with
> this support.
I will again say I chose Arch because I don't have to spend my time
doing that (for a desktop OS); I very much appreciate the people who
put the time into compiling things so I don't have to. I spend a fair
amount of time compiling software at work, and I don't want a larger
list of things to recompile regularly.
I am not intending on continuing to bore everyone with my opinion here...
I still wish support would stay, but it's not my decision, I just
wanted to speak up in case anyone but me cared (and apparently I
really am the only one...).
