[CentOS] SELinux threads, cynicism, one-upmanship, etc.
Bryan J. Smith
thebs413 at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 21 15:57:41 UTC 2005
Peter Farrow <peter at farrows.org> wrote:
> ummm, err, that would be "mandatory" then and not "default"
> Thats another nail in the coffin, tighter in the corner, up
> to your chin in it now I reckon....
Not to agree or disagree with Johnny, but I think what he's
comparing the alleged "beta-quality" SELinux to is something
like a GCC or GLibC change.
I.e., if Red Hat changes the GCC or GLibC of a kernel, you're
stuck with it, you can't change it. But SELinux can be put
into another mode, or just disabled.
So in comparison, by adding SELinux, regardless of what you
think of it, you're not stuck with it. Whereas Red Hat has a
long history of early GCC and GLibC adoption, and you _are_
stuck with their decision.
Not trying to agree/disagree, just point out what I think
he's comparing it to. Please take it in that view, and not
that I'm disagreeing/agreeing with anyone.
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
More information about the CentOS