| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 3 |
> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Personally I'm using the hardened profile already and find the |
| 5 |
> > performance penalties negligible for a desktop user, and someone trying |
| 6 |
> > to run realtime on defaults is likely suicidal anyway. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I suspect what keeps people away from hardened isn't the performance, |
| 9 |
> but the risk of compatibility issues. Most operations these days |
| 10 |
> aren't CPU-bound, but getting something like RBAC to work right is |
| 11 |
> fairly involved... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Rich |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Hi, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
from a longtime user perspective: I'm using hardened on desktops since about three or |
| 18 |
four years now and I can't remember any issues that were caused by the |
| 19 |
toolchain. Performance loss is imho negligible even on low powered systems like an |
| 20 |
atom netbook or my Raspberry Pi (I'm not saying, that there is none, but it's |
| 21 |
nothing dramatical). |
| 22 |
RBAC, SELinux or a PaX enabled kernel is a completly other matter (in terms of |
| 23 |
breakage and usability) but this thread was about toolchain not kernel, wasn't it? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
WKR |
| 26 |
Hinnerk |
Archives