Re: SELinux - way of the future or good idea but !!!

[Warren Young <warren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/8/2010 7:13 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>
> Such [periodic failures] are fairly common

I'd say the main reason someone chooses CentOS (or another Linux flavor 
with similar policies, like Ubuntu LTS) is that the distro provider has 
made a long-term support commitment with minimal churn during a major 
release.

This is why we tolerate the fact that CentOS 5 still ships Firefox 1.5 
five years after Mozilla released it: not because we're troglodytes 
unwilling to upgrade, ever, but because we don't want something as 
random as a browser bug fix to break a formerly-working server.

> and usually run manually.

I assume you mean to advocate running updates infrequently, or at least 
be around to fix them when the automated updates break.

If the former, you're mad if that server is exposed to the Internet. 
You're only slightly deranged if it's LAN-bound but in an organization 
large enough to support ongoing internal strife.

If the latter, that's not practical for everyone who uses CentOS.  I, 
like many others I'm sure, support hundreds of boxes that are almost all 
geographically distant from me.  On top of that, the vast majority of 
those boxes are in a different time zone, so that even though they're 
only used during regular business hours, those hours may occur while I'm 
off trying to have a life.  Or sleep.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos