Why most run Microsoft, not RedHat

[Les Mikesell]

Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> Les Mikesell írta:
>> Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
>>
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> He was a bit tricky to
>>>>>>> use chattr +i on /bin/login and some other progs.
>>>>>>> BTW, although rpm complained that it cannot replace
>>>>>>> those, why isn't it prepared for such scenarios?
>>>>>>> RPM is made for Linux, it should certainly know
>>>>>>> about special filesystem flags and handle them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> How should rpm handle it? Rpm has no way of knowing why the
>>>>>>         
>>>>> How?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. be able to specify special flags in the specfile and apply them 
>>>>> upon
>>>>> install
>>>>> 2. detect if the filesystem doesn't handle such specials and make note
>>>>> of it in the rpmdb
>>>>> 3. clear them before uninstalling or upgrading
>>>>> 4. detect if it was modified, report it with rpmv
>>>>>     (skip this check if the rpmdb indicates it, see 2)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>> Why? What would the advantages be? Do they overcome the drawbacks of
>>>> rpm being able to change a file that you set the immutable flag on?
>>>>
>>>> Mikkel
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Yes, see 3.
>>
>> What would be the point of having a special attribute if programs
>> can just ignore it?
> 
> What's the point of having a package manager if you can
> overwrite everything by compiling from source or delete stuff?
> 
> What's the point of setting the immutable flag on a binary, doc or data
> file that might - and eventually will - be replaced if you upgrade its 
> package?
> 
> What's the point of handling Unix/SELinux permissions by rpm
> if you can simply chmod/chown everything?
> 
> I ran out of rhetoric questions. :-)


It's all a matter of programmer-vs.-programmer wars to show who is in
control.  You can compare it to the person who thought that the passwd 
program should only talk directly to a tty and that programs should not 
be able to use it.  That lasted a few months - until another programmer 
wanted his program to be able to change passwords and wrote 'expect' to 
do it.  A big waste of both people's time...

> But your POV in the question above is wrong.
> The point is to take advantage of something
> where available.

Beg your pardon?  The point of adding the immutable bit was so the file 
couldn't be changed by ordinary means. It is, again, a waste of both 
parties efforts as soon as someone adds the programming to bypass its 
attempt at control.

> Actually, I have another rhetoric
> question to back up my POV: what's the point of
> supporting NX in the newer CPUs when you can
> run the compiled kernel on older system where
> the feature never activates?

For kernel features it isn't a rhetorical question.  The answer is 
always that Linus wants it to be that way.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com