SELinux removed from desktop cd spin?

[Douglas McClendon]

Andrew Farris wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> Andrew Farris wrote:
>>> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>>>> I sincerely hope that what I've said will cause you to think a 
>>>> little more before uttering "I hope everyone agrees with me that 
>>>> more security is always better" again.  But I welcome you to crush 
>>>> my hopes as I've just crushed yours.
>>>
>>> SELinux can and very likely will protect computer systems for 
>>> terrorist's use just as easily as anyone else, since it is 1) free, 
>>> 2) available to the entire known universe; it therefore has nothing 
>>> whatsoever to do with US national security in the context of your 
>>> 'rhetoric' and poorly argued politics.
>>
>> I was really talking about whether the choice to use torture to 
>> improve national security, without considering the other values lost 
>> in the decision, was a wise one to make.
>>
>> The parallel was whether or not the choice to *ALWAYS* use selinux to 
>> improve computer security, without considering the other values 
>> (bloat/performance degradation/user frustration), was not a wise one 
>> to make.
>>
>> But sometimes the subtlety of my logic goes over people's heads.
> 
> Oh I followed your intention, I just disagree with whether that parallel 
> is a fair or even logical one to make about whether selinux is *in* the 
> official spins as opposed to *forcing* people to enable it, which is the 
> difference between effecting your choice or not.

No, please reread what I said.

It was never about the choice to force people to enable it.

It was about the decision to mandate that *every* official fedora spin 
had it enabled by default.

I contend that that there is room for enough official spins, such that 
 >0 will have selinux not enabled by default.

The target of the rant was advocating that exactly 0 official fedora 
spins have selinux not enabled be default.

-dmc