From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031304AbXDRCUb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031310AbXDRCUb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:31 -0400 Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:33087 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031304AbXDRCUa (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@d.namei To: David Wagner cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070417181016.GA10903@one.firstfloor.org> <1176846088.5946.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, David Wagner wrote: > These systems probably have different tradeoffs. Consequently, it seems > to me that arguing over whether SELinux is superior to AppArmor makes > about as much sense as arguing over whether emacs is superior to vim, > or whether Python is superior to Perl. The answer is likely to be > "it depends". This is not what the discussion is about. It's about addressing the many points in the FAQ posted here which are likely to cause misunderstandings, and then subsequent responses of a similar nature. - James -- James Morris