Douglas McClendon wrote:
Andrew Farris wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
I sincerely hope that what I've said will cause you to think a little
more before uttering "I hope everyone agrees with me that more
security is always better" again. But I welcome you to crush my
hopes as I've just crushed yours.
SELinux can and very likely will protect computer systems for
terrorist's use just as easily as anyone else, since it is 1) free, 2)
available to the entire known universe; it therefore has nothing
whatsoever to do with US national security in the context of your
'rhetoric' and poorly argued politics.
I was really talking about whether the choice to use torture to improve
national security, without considering the other values lost in the
decision, was a wise one to make.
The parallel was whether or not the choice to *ALWAYS* use selinux to
improve computer security, without considering the other values
(bloat/performance degradation/user frustration), was not a wise one to
make.
But sometimes the subtlety of my logic goes over people's heads.
Oh I followed your intention, I just disagree with whether that parallel is a
fair or even logical one to make about whether selinux is *in* the official
spins as opposed to *forcing* people to enable it, which is the difference
between effecting your choice or not.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> <ajfarris@xxxxxxxxx>
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
