Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:37:09 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why encourage stupid people to use *BSD WAS:Re: IE Message-ID: <3939A4B5.C62DF7F8@mail.ptd.net> References: <200006021842.LAA24897@usr09.primenet.com> <393855D9.F5F0E5F0@mail.ptd.net> <20000603095822.A13686@physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > Thomas M. Sommers said on Jun 2, 2000 at 20:48:25: > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > People are not prepared for, and may not put up with, these > > > > complexities and limitations. > > > > > > Most of these complexities are artifacts of substantial design > > > flaws, which should be corrected, instead of glossed over as > > > "that's the way it works; it's better, trust me". > > > > Some are, but some are due to essential differences between the kinds of > > systems that FreeBSD and Windows are. These difference will remain > > unless you convert FreeBSD to a single-user system. > > > > > > For example, people will say: "What do you mean I have to login? > > > > I didn't have to do that with Windows." > > > > > > Windows 3.1, perhaps. > > > > 95 and 98, too. > > > > > Probably it should be called "unlocking", > > > not "logging in". Certainly, it should be possible to turn on > > > a FreeBSD box and just get a graphical desktop or shell prompt > > > with a particular users credentials as an active default. It's > > > the user's choice, not the OS designers. The "login problem" > > > is trivial to overcome. > > > > While such a capability might be acceptable to a home or small-business > > user, giving the user the capability to turn off security would be > > unacceptable in a larger installation. > > (a) I don't see what's so hard about logging in. Anyone who > uses email uses a password. Ordinary people aren't *that* dumb. It's not a question of dumb, but of being required to do something inconvenient that they don't see the point for, and that they didn't have to do before. > What's wrong with having an undelete command, if someone can implement > one? Nothing, *if* it can be implemented without affecting the integrity of the system. But coming up with an implementation is not easy. There are security concerns. How do undeleteable files interact with disk quotas? How do they interact with multiple hard links? That, in the 30 years since its creation, Unix has not come up with undelete strongly suggests that either it can't be done or that there is no real need for it. 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?3939A4B5.C62DF7F8>