On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Kurt Seifried wrote: > I don't understand this. is there some reason the patch should _not_ be > included? I mean it's not like people have to use it, and in any event most > people now run vendor supplied kernels which are nicely buyilt/trimmed/etc > anyways. I did not mean to imply I saw a reason why the patch would NOT be included, but that's not the test... the test, I think, is SHOULD it be included? Does Linux (Linus) accept everything that can't be argued against? "Does it advance Linux, overall? How?" This, of course, is based on Linus' clues. There are people of extremely diverse opinions in the LD group, and there are people of extremely diverse opinions in the Linux Community at large. A *reason*, or *argument* for inclusion that shows that LSM needs to be in the "stock-kernel tree" rather than staying where it is now... a joint project by developers of secure systems, might be useful? I'm perfectly willing not to discuss this, if it plays into fears of shadows and boojums, but I think, if LSM is going to present in 2-3 or even 6 months, it's an emotional issue that should be validated intellectually. Why Am I Wrong, Why Am I Getting Quick-Non-Intellectual Responses? 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 : Fri Mar 22 2002 - 13:39:19 PST