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)