Am 27.03.2014 13:28, schrieb Jonathan Schleifer:
Am 27.03.2014 um 04:02 schrieb SMC.Collins <smc.collins@xxxxxxxxxxx>:+1 (this is actually the only email I really read :P) Y'all would do well to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater if you haven't already. -waddlesplash I read that article and it rings of unix concerns, concerns mainframes at banks have. Here is what users want, a OS they can install on hardware , vm etc, and to not have to be hassled with constant certificate updates, passwords etc. SeanI deleted the branch now as people are clearly offended by even only having the minimum level of security that even Windows offers since Windows XP (optionally signed executables, optionally signed drivers, signed updates) - and that was introduced 14 years ago - and prefer to repeat the security disaster of Windows 98. Users wouldn't even have noticed that packages are signed unless they installed a hpkg from a 3rd party without using a repository, but clearly, people feel offended by even the thought that there is cryptography involved that makes sure that the updates you install are actually from the vendor… So, the branch is gone and we can drop this thread now.
I am sorry you are frustrated and carried through with this reaction. You had announced your intended deletion in IRC last night, and even though Axel and myself (maybe more) told you there is no general objection against anything security-related and you might read something into replies which was not intended by their authors, you decided to delete your branch anyway.
Why do you even start a discussion when you are not prepared to face different views both on what makes the most sense, what is needed and how to implement it technically? The way I see it, you got many serious replies, mostly from Ingo, but also Axel, about how best to implement it and what makes the most sense. Additionally, you got some replies from some people who would not like to be forced to use Haiku in certain ways only. There was even already a thread in the discussion to separate things for which there is consense from things still needing discussion. Now you throw it all away.
I really don't understand your reaction. To me it feels like you forced this outcome even after there was clearly no basis for it anymore.
That being said, my impression of the /tone/ in this discussion is that it was unnecessarily abusive and thick with irony. Along the lines of... uhm - do you really believe this... well it's stupid because of this and that...
But this came from you as much as from anybody. If someone thinks there is a flaw in the line of thought from someone else, I think it can be pointed out without insulting the other's intelligence.
Best regards, -Stephan
