From: Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk>
To: RazorBlu <razorblu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ACLs
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:50:38 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <44D3BF62.10202@gmail.com> <20060805014722.GA19509@mail> <44D4EB88.6050406@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44D4EB88.6050406@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608052150.38563.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 988
Lines: 26

On Saturday 05 August 2006 20:03, RazorBlu wrote:
[snip]
> > Precisely what? What's defined in POSIX ACLs wouldn't apply well to
> > processes anyway since they were designed for file access. SELinux was
> > created to deal with what you're talking about, why not use it?
>
> Because SELinux is too complicated to be used effectively by most system
> administrators - that's why.

First you didn't RTFM, and moaned about how superior Windows NT was to Linux, 
now you've been given multiple (superior) solutions, you're moaning that 
they're too complicated?

Please, complain on SELinux mailing lists, don't pollute LKML any further.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/