[read also the very last commentary: don't take to seriously my
arguments]
ok, but why simplifying life of company with such silly rule?
Are not the same people that required commercial UNIX kernel?
So don't worry about internal company rules. In one year a lot
of things changes.
Anyway it is a good motivation to delay the conversion, if there
are really so many external LSM modules used in production environment.
(but see next point)
Configuring a new kernel is not "kernel hacking" and IIRC is considered
in the very first level of LPI.
Anyway where you will find the new module? It should be very specific
on the actual kernel installed. I find few differences to distribute
a module or a kernel. Distributions have/had a lot of kernels
(versions, SMP, processor specific, vserver, xen, readhat, clusteres,
...), so why not distribute a new kernel?
> Think of it like device drivers: Linux would be an enterprise
> failure if you had to re-compile the kernel from source every
> time you added a new kind of device and device driver.
This is a frequent argument, but I don't believe it ;-)
I see more time this argument that new devices on an enterprise.
The real argument is:
: Think of it like device drivers: Linux would be an enterprise
: failure if you had to *compile* the kernel from source for
: *every machine*.
Which is a good point to have modules. Is it still a good point
to have LSM modules? And to obey the "Sarbanes-Oxley"
Don't take me wrong, the above commentaries are not so serious,
and my point was not about modules, but why "Sarbanes-Oxley"
tell us that new modules are simpler then new kernel.
I like kernel without modules, so I want to understand all motivations
why people need modules (and this thread showed me other (non-classical)
reasons). I know that the modules are necessary in most situation, but
I like to see if some reasons can be solved in other ways, so to
simplify also the life of "build-in" peoples.
ciao
cate
-
