Andrew Farris wrote:
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.
No, please reread what I said.
It was never about the choice to force people to enable it.
It was about the decision to mandate that *every* official fedora spin
had it enabled by default.
I contend that that there is room for enough official spins, such that
>0 will have selinux not enabled by default.
The target of the rant was advocating that exactly 0 official fedora
spins have selinux not enabled be default.
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
