On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright wrote: > jmjones, please understand the patch before making allegations that this > is political, or favoring LSM vs. 'other solutions'. > > -chris > Do you really believe that the opponents to LSM will fully understand LSM before they judge it unacceptable? I HAVE looked at LSM, and even have applied it for prototype purposes. I can't argue it is a good thing, but I *can* raise questions that may be important about IF it's a "good" thing. Are you afraid of a little controversy? I suggest that anybody with that attitude GET OUT *now*, the big battle is still ahead of LSM. Questions, informed or not-informed, need to be answered or LSM is garbage. Oh, and, if you wish to totally remove LSM from being "political" you have to discount all the "the kernel developers won't accept this" arguments, all the way back to the beginning. THAT is political. Live with it. LSM has put political (kernel inclusion) concerns before technical (actual security benefit) all along, IMHO. Don't argue against that opinion, you'll lose. Respectfully, J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 16:46:38 PST