Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:19:39 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: UNIX on the Desktop (was: Re: Why no Indians and Arabs?) Message-ID: <3C1E373B.C85F09D8@mindspring.com> References: <20011216112759.U16958-100000@localhost> <002f01c1866e$1e4d9510$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DB7EB.9232204A@mindspring.com> <001101c186dd$5ab94430$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DCDAC.CEA3DEAF@mindspring.com> <003301c186eb$bf1e8710$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DE3EB.8AB3C4E0@mindspring.com> <005a01c18722$d2d5a860$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Credentials are incredibly useful for keeping > > single users from being able to aim guns at > > their feet, without extraordinary effort. > > Both cannot simultaneously exist. To have multiple credentials, you must > have multiple user identities, and this requires multiuser awareness. If a > single user does not have access to all credentials on a system, it is a > multiuser system. Then I guess Windows, as of the 95B distribution, is a "multiuser system". I personally wouldn't make that distinction, though. > The swap file cannot be deleted because it is in use (at least on my NT > system); there are no credentials that permit you to delete files that are > in use, just as there are no credentials that allow you to write outside the > bounds of a file. Sure there are. It's called a "level 3 followed by level 0 volume lock". > > No, it requires more effort to turn it off. > > Only if it is on by default, but no system is initially configured with > diminished credentials, since it would be impossible to modify or maintain > it if it were. Do you actually run 2000/NT, or have you just heard of them? > > You have to explicitly OK the navigation, as > > these are protected directories. > > That is a protection applied to all users, not one based on credentials. No, because the OS doesn't have a problem going there, and neither do install programs. Just because the enforcement is in the tools doesn't make it any less an enforecment. You have priviledged and unpriviledged programs, and the priviledge bit is, defacto, a credential. > > It's like the Steve Jobs argument about cutting > > 30 seconds off the Macintosh boot time: sell > > 1,000,000 machines, and for evey 30 seconds > > you cut off the boot time, you've saved an > > entire human life. > > That's the sort of reasoning I'd expect from Steve Jobs. If I follow the > same reasoning, then every time a Mac crashes, three dozen people are > killed. I don't see your problem? > > I felt compelled because you were obvious > > ignoring it. > > No, you explained it in the hope that you would be able to damage my > credibility by creating the impression that you know more than I do about > the topic. You've done that a number of times, with myself and with many > others with whom you hold discussions, so it is easy to spot. You are too precious a troll... > > It's nice to know from your response that it > > wasn't ignorance, but the inconvenince of the > > facts to your argument, which caused that > > omission. > > Those facts were not relevant to my argument. Only because you continually redefine your argument... > > It's only painful when doing things at an > > enterprise level. > > You did not initially apply any qualifications to your statement. I did, in the part you carefully omitted to quote. I will quote it for you again: ] > > The ability to perform "point-and-click" for ] > > trivial administrative tasks (such as minimal ] > > firewall installation, or minimal mail server ] > > configuration) far, far outweighs "raw power" ] > > in most cases. ] > ] > Point-and-click gets very tiring very quickly when you have to do a lot of ] > system administration, especially at a distance. Just modifying a text file ] > can be a lot faster and simpler. ] ] Sure. That's what scripting languages are for. Most people don't ] need to do that sort of thing, though, for a non-enterprise installation, ] and even if they do, the number of people they have to support is small ] enough that they can "live with the pain" of GUI administration. ] ] And since small businesses grow up to be big businesses, a GUI ] administration facility is a requisite bridge that make market ] penetration significantly easier. Note the intentional use of the phrase "Most people". You cut out the first two paragraphs of that statement and substitutes an ellipsis, without indicating that it was your ellipsis, and not mine. > > Almost without exception, companies which have > > remained in any market and active have sold > > up market as their products matured, in order > > to maintain both their profit margin, and their > > rate of increase. > > One glaring exception being, of course, Apple. Apple is not an exception. > > There are several other books which show the > > disasterous effects on comapnies unwilling to > > change their margin and/or profit model ... > > One good example is Apple. No. Apple did not attempt to enter a new market with an old model, and expect the same results as the old market. Novell and WoolCo (the short-lived "discount" branch of Woolworths) are much better examples. Apple is a horse of a different wheelbase. > > Frankly, Microsoft has leveraged its monopoly > > position on the desktop ... in order to force > > what is probably premature entry into the server > > market on its part ... > > If its entry is premature, it will fail in its efforts. I don't think that > Microsoft knows enough about the server market to really succeed within it, > but if it can find customers that are at least as naïve as it is--and that > is certainly possible with the continuing expansion of the server market--it > may be able to sell lots of servers, anyway. That's incorrect. If you can build clients that operate in a damaged way for lack of Microsoft servers, and everyone has to buy Microsoft clients (because of many reasons, including the negative advocacy of people like you any time a potential alternative is discussed), then Microsoft will be able to displace servers in proportion to their clients (increasing) non-operability without them. > > > Eventually, I expect that Microsoft will spin= > > off or simply "decide to abandon" the desktop > > market. > > Not any time in the foreseeable future. Virtually all the revenue of > Microsoft comes from the desktop. Additionally, Microsoft has consistently > demonstrated that it only really understands desktops, not servers. Luckily, we have a number of States Attorneys General who don't care about continuing that profit model... > Revenue growth would have to come more from the server sector, since > Microsoft has locked up the desktop OS domain and hasn't produced any killer > apps in years, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft will succeed in this. See previous post. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C1E373B.C85F09D8>