Re: SELinux and access across 'similar types'

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Daniel J Walsh
>>>> <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos