[Question] Questions about the BusyBox specification.

[Thomas Geulig]

Am 02.07.2014 17:45, schrieb Rich Felker:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:47:45PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote:
>> Hi Rich!
>>
>>> Obviously something like that isn't acceptable for inclusion.
>>> It was probably just a hacked-up version of upstream iptables.
>>
>> Just as a question. I did not look into that very deep.
>>
>> You are talking about iptables. I thought newer kernel have a
>> different firewall, with a complete different language/interpreter.
>> Is that really intentional to look still at the old iptables?
>> Wouldn't it be better to implement applets of the new firewall
>> rules, giving also other users a push to use the new firewall
>> infrastructure.
>
> I was under the impression that most users/products are still using
> the iptables interface, despite it having a new backend that they
> could use directly. It wouldn't hurt to have both, but a
> command-line-compatible version of iptables is probably more important
> from a user perspective.

Yes. The new interface has some nice features, but you need a relatively 
new kernel to use it and many scripts etc. use iptables syntax.

iptables will be around for some years (at least in the embedded world).

Thomas



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3969 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20140702/e6139b44/attachment.p7s>