On Saturday, Jun 7, 2003, at 19:47 US/Eastern, Brian May wrote:
Your argument is like the one "My car has {antiskid/ABS brakes, air
bags, etc} so it is OK if I drive more aggressively".
Well, I'd say it's more like saying: It's snowing today, there is some ice on the roads, but I really need to get somewhere. If I had a car with two-rear-wheel drive, no ABS, etc., I'd be stuck missing it. But because the car has four-wheel drive, ABS, air bags, etc., I can go (though slowly and carefully, of course).
It's like saying I'd never run, e.g., a shell server on Windows ME. But with the additional security of a Unix system, I can.
With the additional security of SE-Linux, I can do things that I couldn't do without it.
It's silly to treat security (or safety, for that matter) as an absolute. There is a non-zero risk of a security breach. That risk is increased by running services and decreased by, e.g., pulling the network plug. To decided if you want/can run a service, you compare the risk of security breach with the benefits of running that service.
SELinux decreases the risk of a security breach (at least we hope it does!). Therefor, a reasonable person may choose to run more services. That's not a poor decision. It's a reasonable decision guided by the goal of getting the most out of computing resources by carefully balancing the convenience of additional services against the security risks of the same.