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

Re: How NSA access was built into Windows

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 14:36 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 15:32 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 22 January 2007 13:06, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >Sounds more like ccache sped up your build than anything selinux
> > >related.
> > 
> > Except that ccache has been in use since back about a week after I 
> > installed FC6 from scratch, installed then as a solution to the long 
> > build times of the kino cvs.  It was in use on FC2 before that, for about 
> > a year.  (But that copy or /root/.ccache is on another separate drive.)  
> > So it was active for the 2nd and 3rd builds too, in addition to building 
> > all the 2.6.19-rcN tree as it became available.  And all of those builds 
> > were 30 minutes or more.  With ccache running...
> > 
> > I guess it boils down to you can believe what you want, and I can do the 
> > same.  When I get a 3x increase in *effective* compiler speed by dropping 
> > selinux, then I think the conclusions I reach as a lifetime 
> > troubleshooter & medium grade JOAT should be obvious.  I'm sorry it 
> > doesn't appear that way to others.
> ----
> one problem I have with this is that you say that you've been using
> ccache for a year on FC-2 when in fact, last November 30th, you didn't
> know what ccache was and Dave Jones had to tell you what it was and how
> to install it.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-November/msg06826.html

You sure are making alot of assumptions and not asking any questions.
For instance it's entirely possible that he still uses an older FC2 box
to experiment with, and also that ccache had been installed on that box
from the start.  That's from what I see on this thread you posted.

> This of course is notwithstanding the problems you had making it work
> because you insist on building stuff as root and that isn't secure or
> recommended...
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-November/msg06858.html

Alot of sysadmins do stuff as root.

> ----
> > 
> > Selinux is also on my FC5 lappy, but it didn't seem to 'get in my face' 
> > near as badly as this FC6 version has done. Here, when its set for 
> > permissive, and it generates 100k a day in the logs for my normal 
> > activities, reading and replying to email, looking at manpages, working 
> > on bash scripts, playing a few rounds of patience or editing a wedding 
> > video in kino and harrassing the folks on ./ as well as these lists, it 
> > just strikes me that something IS drasticly wrong, and I'm trying to fix 
> > it.  I didn't build an XP2800 box with a gig of ram on a 333mhz fsb 3 
> > years ago to have it run like a dosbox using floppies.  I'll build 
> > another, a 64 bitter with maybe 4GB of ram next time, when linux has 64 
> > bit supported as well as 32 bit is now.  In the meantime I don't intend 
> > to support bloat if I can do away with it.
> > 
> > As someone said in a private email, this is MY checkbook, this is MY house 
> > (its paid for too), this is MY truck (and I wrote a check for it) and 
> > this is MY computer.  And that seems like a right attitude to me.
> ----
> SELinux sort of separates the sysadmins from the users.

Speak for yourself.  I'm a sysadmin and a user, yet I don't feel divided
in the least.

>  Users don't want
> anything to get in their way (i.e., make/build, run GUI as root).
> Sysadmins don't want anything to compromise their system.
> Craig

Neither do users.

Off Topic or Political Discussions:

"Character is what you do when nobody's looking." - J.C. Watts

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