Karl MacMillan wrote: >>The "big" comment is the size >>of the module and the size of the set of associated utilities. >> >Are you saying that the SELinux module has more code than is necessary to >implement its feature set? Is the "big" judgment in comparison to something >else, e.g. AppArmor? If so, does that size comparison really make sense based on >what the two modules implement? > I strongly believe that this is not the place to play "my module is better than your module." I brought up the differences only to dispel the claim that SELinux is so general that it can subsume all other modules. If people stop arguing to remove LSM and replace it with SELinux, then I will stop bitching about what I perceive are the limitations of SELinux. At least here :) Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed May 25 2005 - 20:36:22 PDT