[CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document

Frank Tanner III pctech at mybellybutton.com
Thu Jun 7 00:26:17 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 01:28 +0200, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez wrote:
> What is all this mess?.... I have requested him his document and he has
> no problem to send it to me.
> I understand the document belongs to him and he let us to read it. Where
> is the problem? The document size is near 15 MB and I think that it is
> not a good idea to send it by mail to the list directly (simply because
> a lot of people will not mind about it and they would have to download
> 15 MB).
> If he likes to make a PDF in which people cannot write, it is his
> problem. It is not allowing you to write on them, just giving you the
> chance to read it. If you like his way, go ahead, if you doesn't bad
> luck. His rules are the rules...
> I don't think he had problems to receive suggestions about the document
> structure, contents or even his way of harden firewalls, but they are
> just advices or suggestions, and if he think your ideas are right he
> will care about them. (For example I think that installing X Windows in
> a machine that will be used for firewall purposes is not good, I just
> had a look on his document, but if he thinks he is OK, what can I do?)

Thank you.  The only time X Windows runs is when you manually run it.
It's installed but the firewall runs in runlevel 3 until you manually
run vncserver.  The reason that I chose to include X Windows in it is
that some people may be administering the firewall ruleset from a
Windows machine.  The Windows version of Firewall Builder is a "for pay"
application.  This allows someone from a Windows machine to administer
it without having to pay for the Windows Firewall Builder application.

I, too, would prefer not to have X Windows loaded.  It's an un-needed
waste of space except for that one application.

> I guess that people that share their documents or resources are always
> welcome, and we don't have to ficht with them about the way they go.
> Peace,
> Jim Perrin wrote:
> > On 6/6/07, pctech at mybellybutton.com <pctech at mybellybutton.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just because someone doesn't like the way I distribute it doesn't
> >> mean that they have the right to tell me what to do with it or how to
> >> give it to people.  If they don't like my distribution method then
> >> they are free not to ask for it.  Nobody's making them ask for it.  I
> >> *CLEARLY* stated in my original e-mail who the intended target
> >> audience was.
> >
> > Your named target audience were the folks who have already asked you
> > for this once before. You already have their addresses, as this is the
> > only way you distribute the document.
> >
> > You don't get to cherry pick your arguments here. If you're going to
> > come into a venue with lots of folks who don't approve of your model
> > (which is entirely up to you, that's fine and it's completely your
> > choice) you can't expect them to not yell a bit.
> >
> > It would be something akin to handing out pro-life flyers at an
> > abortion clinic. Both groups are well within their rights, and not a
> > damn one of them is happy about the situation.
> >
> > As I said, do not advertise it here, and don't continue this
> > discussion. I'm not questioning the method of distribution, or the
> > content but I don't want it on this list. Period.
> >

Frank Tanner III (pctech at mybellybutton.com)

ICQ:  1730844
AIM:  KalokSundancer
MSN:  pctech at mybellybutton.com
YIM:  fbtanner

More information about the CentOS mailing list