[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More PATH fallout. Who decided this was a good idea?



On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 09:54 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Now, if anyone wants to discuss this any further, I am willing as long as we 
> drop all the hostility. I'm tired of it. Attacking the security target is not 
> something I want to debate as its out of my control. I just want to meet it.
> 
> Hope you find this informtion useful.

Unfortunately, attacking the security target is exactly what the Fedora
community is going to do.  We don't just meet things because it's a
checkbox on a list.  If changes are going to be made (or kept) in
Fedora, they need to be for an understandable and agreeable reason.

I have yet to see anything in your definition of CAPP that adds real
security to our system.  What I get out of it so far is "If all the
admins play nice, we can track what they're doing".  But if admins stop
playing nice, all bets are off.  What kind of security is that?  What
value does that add to Fedora systems?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom┬▓ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]