SELinux - a call for end-of-life.

[Bryn M. Reeves]

On 09/02/2010 12:21 PM, JB wrote:
> - its philosophy
>   A kernel that was surrounded by flexibility in its system and user space
>   (modular, single purpose, stand-alone utilities, easy to assemble and
>   disassemble for a work to be done; a fruitful model for a broader,
>   self-sustained, and extendable "ecological" space)

Although the tool philosophy was heavily modular, modularity as we know
it today at the kernel level arrived waaaaay after UNIX's early years
(even pipes, an essential part of the tool modularity did not feature in
the very first UNIX versions).

The early kernels were a single program hand written in assembly language.

Igrc it was only SysV R4.1 that added the ability to dynamically load
kernel modules (1991-1992 or so?).

> - its people, a dedicated bunch of system professionals and users, adherents of
>   that philosophy, ready to defend it in the business place and beyond and
>   fight for what they believed was a superior idea

Dr. Peter Salus has written some excellent texts on UNIX's early years,
now updated to include the later history of the free and open source
software movements and available online:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051013231901859

> This is a fascist model of security computing, and computing in general.

You seem to have godwinned your own thread.

> I want to have a user-space real-time security service, with a smart and
> minimal system interface to the kernel or other services, but working as
> a stand-alone system utility that can be autonomous, modular, dynamically
> configurable, installable at any time, and removable at any time (completely
>  and safely). 

Go and write it. If it's any good you'll soon have lots of users. Some
of them might not fully understand or like the way that you've designed
things and then you may find yourself in another thread just like this one.

Regards,
Bryn.