"Giovanni P. Tirloni" gpt@tirloni.org wrote:
I'm all for SELinux.. just not it's deployment without planning. That's why I've inclued a URL to the unofficial SELinux FAQ, so he could disable it but read about what it was later.
Two most _excellent_ statements on SELinux. Apparently other people think you have to be for/against SELinux. The reality is that if you don't know what to do with SELinux, by all means, disable it.
The only "writing on the wall" is the reality that many Linux professionals keep laughing at Sun. I'm not laughing. I used to be. I'm not anymore.
One might argue that while Ghandi was right, I'm sure he didn't have a bias in that thought. ;->
Peter Farrow peter@farrows.org wrote:
We've been here before by the way
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-May/006303.html
And I noted you also griped about ACLs in a filesystem where the filesystem dump doesn't know how to handle them. Now if we could get Red Hat behind XFS like it is SELinux, then we _might_ have a chance.
Otherwise, did I mention Solaris? ;->
[ Please don't bash me for mentioning Solaris. I'm just saying, if we don't get serious about such things, Solaris _will_ capture a signficant number of Linux systems back. ]