-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
hi,
< ... adjusting tin-foil hat and asbestos shorts ...>
since i actually asked a simple question early on (~ "can we use
sa-update rather than RDJ to pull SARE rules ...") in the interminable
"SA vs RDJ" thread ;-) , and, afaict, it's still unanswered, i'll "opine".
a recent thread comment "from SARE" is the trigger here:
"RDJ and SAupdate are really separate from SARE"
while true & acknowledged, allow me to put my "average user hat" on ...
first,
disclaimer: all this just my $0.01 (as a user, i'm cheap) ...
now,
"this is stupid!"
there. i said it! nyah!
from a user's perspective, all this is confusing/confounding. as a
user, i want to see/use one mechanism for rules.
currently, it all "smells" like a bunch o' (talented & well-meaning)
engineers discussing how NOT to do things, and WHETHER to do things.
and, a fair dosage of 'project pride' mixed in ...
nothing generally bad. neither atypical nor unpredictable. simply,
wasted breath, imho.
iiuc, SARE, & eventually RDJ, were created a while ago because,
historically , releasing new sa-project rules
quite clearly, with the advent of SA-project released/blessed sa-update,
it's not really necessary anymore. i.e., asynchronous rule & code
releases are provided for.
as a user, might i suggest a "management mandate"? something to the
effect of:
"This" will be doable-&-done within the SA-project.
This is the way we intend to do things.
This is how you do it.
This is how you migrate what you've done.
Full stop.
perhaps add to the mandate a dedicated-to-the-topic & simply documented
wiki page (or better yet, something off the main page) that
step-by-steps "how to create & maintain" an sa-update channel for .cf's
& .pm's.
yes, i know this is an "open source" project ... and that consensus is
some-part-n-parcel. but can y'all get to one?
i know SA-proj leads have openly said, effectively, that if people want
more explanation to let them know their questions and they'll try to
update the avilable info.
rather than everybody waiting around for "the other project" to
undertake the effort/clarity, can there at least be SOME recognition
that clarity, if not simplicity, is a user requirement?
and, that we're talking about core functionality here, not something
horribly tangential ...
SA *is* about managing/processing rules after all! ...
</ removing tin-foil hat and asbestos shorts ... but keeping them
readily available>
cheers,
richard
- --
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X against HTML email, vCards
/ \ & micro$oft attachments
[GPG] OpenMacNews at gmail dot com
fingerprint: 50C9 1C46 2F8F DE42 2EDB D460 95F7 DDBD 3671 08C6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iEYEAREDAAYFAkTcrBQACgkQlffdvTZxCMatJgCggnRWqShnz7VEfVKS6TlZ6NFr
FKkAmgJcRBpWJ2U/0YUYb55sELhvV5bl
=y8AX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
