On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 07:57 -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Peter Farrow <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ummm, err, that would be "mandatory" then and not "default"
> > Thats another nail in the coffin, tighter in the corner, up
> > to your chin in it now I reckon....
>
> Not to agree or disagree with Johnny, but I think what he's
> comparing the alleged "beta-quality" SELinux to is something
> like a GCC or GLibC change.
>
> I.e., if Red Hat changes the GCC or GLibC of a kernel, you're
> stuck with it, you can't change it. But SELinux can be put
> into another mode, or just disabled.
>
> So in comparison, by adding SELinux, regardless of what you
> think of it, you're not stuck with it. Whereas Red Hat has a
> long history of early GCC and GLibC adoption, and you _are_
> stuck with their decision.
>
> Not trying to agree/disagree, just point out what I think
> he's comparing it to. Please take it in that view, and not
> that I'm disagreeing/agreeing with anyone.
----
actually, he's giving a clinic on how to antagonize one of the CentOS
developers...don't intercede...he's doing a really terrific job of it.
I guess that's why this thread includes 'one-upmanship' in the title.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
