On Monday 24 March 2008 23:12, Joshua Brindle <method@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > we certainly have alot more types today, I'm not sure if that was the > real obstacle though. The real obstacle is bad design. I don't think that there has ever been a time when it made sense to use the same file name for either a program or a plain text config file. It might make some sense to try to execute /etc/daemon-config.sh and then read /etc/daemon-config if that fails (or the other way around). Having a one-line config file which says "execute program X" would also make sense. Using the same file name for both such that a horrible disaster is only a single chmod command away is just a bad idea. I recall reading in a version of the Unix Horror stories about how someone accidentally made some C source code executable, and somehow when the C source in question was executed as a shell script it gave the same result as "rm -rf /". -- russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Blog http://www.coker.com.au/sponsorship.html Sponsoring Free Software development -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
