On Thursday, December 09, 2010 06:55 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:11:23 pm Warren Young wrote: >> Let's not drag the desktop user into this discussion, too. > > Why not? Are there no CentOS desktop users out there? Are the needs of the desktop just to be ignored? I support desktop Linux users who are not power users; works great for them. They're thrilled to not have viruses. +1 I possibly would have had Centos desktops strewn all over the school if it had met certain needs in a trial two years ago. > >> Long experience has shown that when Joe User tries to do Thing X and is >> prevented, then a popup appears that in effect says "run this command to >> make this popup go away and allow Thing X to happen", THEY WILL RUN THE >> COMMAND. It's so reliable an effect that you could make a killing if >> any bookie were stupid enough to let you bet on it. > > Exactly. That is precisely why you want controls to restrict what some random program can do, and thus remove the danger. In my three teenage childrens' vernacular, 'Well, duh!' > >> Please, let's keep this thread centered on professionally-managed >> servers, the focus of CentOS, and thus hopefully this list. > > Who says that's the focus? While I'm sure the majority of CentOS installs are for servers, the CentOS desktop does exist. I know I have plenty of CentOS servers; I also have Linux desktops of more than one distribution scattered all over. It is kind of true that the desktop is a bit neglected by Redhat in comparison to what it does for the server. But whatever. SELinux for the desktop is the same kind of challenge as it is for third-party applications.