On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 08:03:48PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > I know what you're going to say "apple pie and mom"... but the fact is, > the documentation follows the code, which responds to the documentation, > which follows the code. There need not be a "great" divergence, if the > effort is truely cooperative. True. I welcome this. > Um, possibly, but that, in my world, is the job of the "Systems Analyst", > and I think every programmer should strive to perfect his/her art to the > point where he/she can move up to System Analyst or System Administrator. Ok, I'm not going to talk about how systems like this are set up for failure, how they don't work, and how much they belittle the actual art of writing code. That discussion is very much off topic for this list. > Okay, I stand corrected, but a loadable module DOES provide a means of > extending the kernel to provide other functionality without actually > touching the Kernel proper. Not So? Yes, that is true. I guess it depends on where you see the "kernel proper" ending. Remember Linux is a monolithic kernel, it's all "proper" :) greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 01 2001 - 17:32:47 PDT