On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 17:55, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TL" == Terry Linhardt <linhardt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > TL> My sense is that the SELinux version remains something of interest > TL> for only a sub-set of users. > > I think security is of interest to the vast majority of users. Or are > you of the opinion that the security we have currently is all the > security we need? Jason, thank you for the feedback. No, without a doubt I believe efforts should be made to increase security. If I didn't believe that, I would advocate using another company's OS <smile>. > > TL> That being the case, why turn it on by default for individuals who > TL> may not desire to use/test it? > > This is a test release. If you don't desire to test things, why are > you using a test release? Look, I was suggesting something for consideration. The rationale is that many individuals don't care to get "entangled" in SELinux at this time. There are plenty of other things to be tested. Now, I'll accept that the case can be made that the configuration can be readily changed via a drop-down box, and an individual should know what they are doing when they accept a "default" (which is to implement SELinux). However, my sense is that when something is implemented which requires some different admin techniques then the default should be to "not implement." But you know, I could even be wrong. :) Terry > > - J< >
