[CentOS] SELinux and access across 'similar types'
Daniel J Walsh
dwalsh at redhat.com
Tue Jan 10 21:26:24 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 01/10/2012 03:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Daniel J Walsh
>>>>> <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Now if only more people used RHEL we could further
>>>>>> enhance the products. :^)
>>>>> Why isn't it accepted as more of a standard?
>>>> I don't understand the question.
>>> Why is it vendor-specific to RHEL?
>> I was talking Money not vendor specific. The question meant as a
>> jab was if more people used RHEL instead of Centos, we could pay
>> more developers. I thought the @redhat.com would signify why I
>> would want that. :^)
> OK, I can understand why you would want that. I don't understand
> why you think anyone else would want even more nonstandard
> variations in linux distributions. And if this isn't intended to
> be vendor-specific, why isn't it an independent upstream project
> or included in the kernel?
> --- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Again, there is nothing that we do that is Vendor specific, Everything
we do with SELinux is open source. We are working to get our stuff
I have no idea what you are talking about as far as variations in
Linux Distributions. I work regularly with people in Centos, RHEL,
gentoo, ubunto, debian, fedora and today even Mandriva. SELinux was
just released for android also. As I tweeted yesterday.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the CentOS