On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 19:11:18 +0100
"dng@???" <dng@???> wrote:

> On 07-03-2021 18:20, tito via Dng wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 18:03:30 +0100
> > Antony Stone <Antony.Stone@???> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday 07 March 2021 at 17:59:22, Steve Litt wrote:
> >>
> >>> See this web page:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern
> >>>
> >>> I'd say at least half of the listed anti-patterns are used by
> >>> systemd.
> >> Very nice.
> >>
> >> Antony.
> >>
> > Hi,
> > this makes me think of the times when you could startx
> > with IceWM on a 1.44 floppy disk. That was simplicity
> > and to a certain extent poetry. I personally would scrap:
> > dbus
> > consolekit
> > packagekit
> > policykit
> > systemd
> > apparmor
> > selinux
> > I am sure I've forgot some other garbage.
> >
> > P.S.: I'm open to new technologies......
> > when they follow a simple rule: less code is better
> > as I can understand only as much code as fits
> > onto my screen.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Tito
>
> Hi,
>
> Mostly agree with you and in its current state apparmor belongs to
> this list. In the same time I like the idea of apparmor in limiting
> apps behavior. It could be most useful if implemented correctly.
>
> Grtz.
>
> Nick
>
>

Hi,
I doubt this could be ever implemented correctly as you have to check
every code path of every app you will armorize or as soon as your usage
diverges from what the distro gurus have envisioned your program
will stop working without even a warning.
Next then we will need a uber-apparmor that checks apparmor safety
and anyway more code more bugs less security. Why not fix the existing
programs instead?

Ciao,
Tito