In article <>,
matthew green  <> wrote:
>until all the broken kvm tools are fixed this change really
>must stay as-is.  if someone truly wants this level of 
>security they can choose it, but it's not OK to break basic
>features by default in the name of security.

Well, even if we want to break things to improve security, this
should be done in an expressive/organized fashion: It is not ok
for tools that worked before to now fail silently, or with unexpected
errors that don't communicate to the user what needs to be done to
fix them.

I.e. I would support changing the default again, if the tools
were made functional again, or they were modified to produce
a meaningful error if they failed because of the change.

I will work on both.


Reply via email to