3 ms·

>because people don't care enough and they don't have a good reason to care Users do care, but they're not given an OS that works in a sane manner to enforce t

>because people don't care enough and they don't have a good reason to care Users do care, but they're not given an OS that works in a sane manner to enforce their wishes. You can't bolt this stuff on after the fact without a lot of grief.

viraptor 4y ago
Strongly disagree and we've got receipts too. Even a basic search for selinux-related issues will show you how many people want to disable it compared to how many want to understand it. It's not users either. Developers who should know better and who should distribute the policies that users need in the first place also start their installation instructions with "disable selinux". It's not even selinux specific - "everyone's a domain admin" is also a meme in security in the enterprise windows world where the permissions are actually a bit easier to manage. One of the main complaints about AWS complexity are IAM policies. There's just no way around it - this is inherently complex and a generic user does not care to learn how to deal with this. When you simplify it (like mobile phones do) on the other hand, there will be lots of people (rightfully) complaining about not being able to use the files between applications - a common complaint about iOS environment.
- entelechy0 4y ago
  [dead]
- mikewarot 4y ago
  Forcing the user to decide ahead of time exactly what files are required goes against the purpose of a computer. It is a run-time choice, not an administrative one. SE linux et al solve the wrong problem, which is why we all hate it.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Selinux is only one of the tech I mentioned. Flatpak portals do access query at runtime instead. But if you hold MLS and its military origins as an example, keep in mind those were very much labelled ahead of time and there's lots of administration involved.

3 ms·

>because people don't care enough and they don't have a good reason to care Users do care, but they're not given an OS that works in a sane manner to enforce t

by mikewarot 4y ago

viraptor 4y ago
Strongly disagree and we've got receipts too. Even a basic search for selinux-related issues will show you how many people want to disable it compared to how many want to understand it. It's not users either. Developers who should know better and who should distribute the policies that users need in the first place also start their installation instructions with "disable selinux". It's not even selinux specific - "everyone's a domain admin" is also a meme in security in the enterprise windows world where the permissions are actually a bit easier to manage. One of the main complaints about AWS complexity are IAM policies. There's just no way around it - this is inherently complex and a generic user does not care to learn how to deal with this. When you simplify it (like mobile phones do) on the other hand, there will be lots of people (rightfully) complaining about not being able to use the files between applications - a common complaint about iOS environment.
- entelechy0 4y ago
  [dead]
- mikewarot 4y ago
  Forcing the user to decide ahead of time exactly what files are required goes against the purpose of a computer. It is a run-time choice, not an administrative one. SE linux et al solve the wrong problem, which is why we all hate it.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Selinux is only one of the tech I mentioned. Flatpak portals do access query at runtime instead. But if you hold MLS and its military origins as an example, keep in mind those were very much labelled ahead of time and there's lots of administration involved.