On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 19:05 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Terry Linhardt wrote: > > > 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." > > Terry, > > In any new release, there are usually new features that people don't think > are worth the cost. For example, when Linux switched from libc5 to glibc, > people complained vehemently because we were breaking things "for no good > reason". Yet today, almost everyone would agree that glibc is light years > ahead of where libc5 ever was. > > The point is that people are going to have to deal with the change, and > once they go through it, they'll realize its full value. I think becoming > aware of the benefits of SELinux is the best way to find enthusiasm for > the change. > > Cheers, > -- Elliot > The daring is in the doing > Actually, if you pay close attention during the install, there is a button to select whether SELinux is enabled or not. Though I agree that it would be better to dive into SELinux, I'm going to save that for a retirement project! Scott
