"Giovanni P. Tirloni" <gpt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm all for SELinux.. just not it's deployment without
> planning.
> That's why I've inclued a URL to the unofficial SELinux
> FAQ, so he could disable it but read about what it was
> later.
Two most _excellent_ statements on SELinux. Apparently other
people think you have to be for/against SELinux. The reality
is that if you don't know what to do with SELinux, by all
means, disable it.
The only "writing on the wall" is the reality that many Linux
professionals keep laughing at Sun. I'm not laughing. I
used to be. I'm not anymore.
One might argue that while Ghandi was right, I'm sure he
didn't have a bias in that thought. ;->
Peter Farrow <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We've been here before by the way
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-May/006303.html
And I noted you also griped about ACLs in a filesystem where
the filesystem dump doesn't know how to handle them. Now if
we could get Red Hat behind XFS like it is SELinux, then we
_might_ have a chance.
Otherwise, did I mention Solaris? ;->
[ Please don't bash me for mentioning Solaris. I'm just
saying, if we don't get serious about such things, Solaris
_will_ capture a signficant number of Linux systems back. ]
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
