On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:42:05 EDT, jmjonesat_private said: > > > I don't know if I agree with the "dubious nature" of a Phase 2 or not. > > LSM is something fairly new, and very often the first pass reveals a slew > > of things that can be done better with a second pass at it. I do agree > > that planning one out now isn't a particularly useful concept... if we can > > envision something that will "definitely be needed in phase 2", we > > probably should accomodate it now... then let phase 2 design itself based > > on the experience gained from phase 1. > > Just beware the second-system effect (Fred Brooks, "Mythical Man-Month"). *LOL*, getting a grandiose/feature-laden monstrosity past THIS group is going be a darn hard thing to accomplish... I've been watching a discussion over a single bit (int vs. unsigned) on another thread, and another about simply MENTIONING an optional "convention"... with strong feelings about if it should even be mentioned in documentation or not. Of course, if most of the Phase 1 people drift away FDH after the first phase gets in and a new group clusters (quite possible), it is certainly a good "beware" to keep in mind. > > Also, "Be prepared to throw the first one away". > EGAD! :) J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 11:13:49 PDT