Andrew Farris wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Andrew Farris wrote:
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.
The OP you replied to (jonez) did not mention enabling selinux, only
having it. This may be a minor semantic difference,
Yes, I agree that that minor semantic difference was not addressed in my
rant or reply to your reply.
But it doesn't really change the point I was trying to make, because I
see this-
selinux has benefits, and costs in disk space and performance, and
usability.
My logic is that because of this, I vehenemently disagree with the
proposition that fedora have a policy of installing it by default
(regardless of default enable/disable) on *every* official spin.
It is clear, that the target of my rant was advocating *at least* that
proposition (and perhaps the further that it be enabled by default).
but I see no reason
why the distribution should produce official spins without selinux
*available*...
neither do I.
I agree there is plenty of room for a spin in which it is
not enabled by default (but I would not agree the main desktop spin is
one of them)
neither would I (being charitable and taking the word that the rate of
user annoyances will continue decreasing, and more desktop user benefits
will be added)
. As you've already mentioned if its that important for
someone to build a custom spin with no selinux bits on it at all, thats
not exactly hard for them to do. But is there honestly a need for
Fedora to host and build it? IMO No.
Is there honestly a need for fedora to position policy to preclude such
an event, should interest in such a project build?
Again, the non-political aspect of this debate is basically one which
I've sadly always been easily drawn into. I'm a 'never say never' kind
of person. I think there may even be some mathematical 'black swan'
philosophy related to it.
I.e. just because you might not see a big need for a particular subset
of the possible spins of fedora, does not mean that you should advocate
that such spins not be permitted, or be precluded by policy. Or so my
opinion goes.
But really, that is a bunch of long winded technical justification for
the fact that I presented a rant against current public policies that
seem willing to sacrifice what I considered valuable ideals and culture,
for the sake of national security.
I guess I should just wake up and smell the post-9/11 world and get used
to it, and not use every chance I find to speak up against what I
perceive as a world where the US constitution is being metaphorically
shat on.
Que Sera Sera...
-dmc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
