I note that in Core 3, Release 1, SELinux is activated by default.
My impression (albeit from VERY little experience in Core 2) is that SELinux is a significantly different beast. If my assumption is correct that a certain learning curve is involved, I question whether SELinux should be activated by default.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks...Terry
Relating back to all the limitations that SELinux had to prevent files from installing, not allowing certain applications to work as they have for several distributions, it is great that SELinux was not enabled default for FC2.
The people supporting SELInux have come up with a better targeted method for enforcement. I think that this approach is a much better aproach to concentrate on protecting.
I upgraded a system and was bitten early on by SELinux which was just the existence of a directory called /selinux.
I'll try to enable it on a clean install later. So far, it seems that there are not a lot of failures caused by the new direction that SELinux has taken.
We'll see the SELinux related bugs with more testers probably. I inquired about a USB problem that locked up a system on boot. This was not related to SELinux.
Let's hope that the testers and the developers caught most before FC3T1 was made available.
Jim
-- If you refuse to accept anything but the best you very often get it.
