[openbeos] Re: OBOS Security
- From: Fred K Ollinger <follinge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
> >> This is the problem with saying "multi-user".
> >> There are so many people's different ideas of what that means. :-)
> >
> >I see two.
> >
> >1. people login at different time, one at a time, IMHO, crappy -
> >pseudo-multiuser
>
> Why is this crappy or psuedo? FWIW, I believe that a large number
Hmm. Crappy is definately an opion. Doing less is generally thought of as
crappier than doing more esp if there's not more complexity (for the user)
when more is done.
Multi-user, to me, means that many people can use it at the same time.
MS found this to be too hard (at the time) so they made it look
multi-user. Many people were fooled.
Also, real multi-user will have more complex permissions so I won't have
to hear conversations like I heard in a hospital w/ _confidential_ patient
data.
"Is this your file?"
"I don't know, I think it's Maurice's"
"Can I erase this file?"
"I'm not sure."
And so on. I don't call this "easy to use" especially when you consider
the cost (in hospitals, people's time doesn't come cheap). If they had
spend half an hour at a seminar learning about groups and user
permissions, then they would have saved hours of time on the computer, and
_confidential_ data would have been more secure. These are people who
had to learn 20 latin words a night for a semester. Hard for me to believe
that they can't learn 5 short words and grasp their meanings. I don't want
a doctor that dumb working on me. All hail Joe Sixpack!
> of the Unix machines out there spend most of their time in this manner.
> Think:
> 1) machines that work unattended
> 2) workstations (i.e. Irix boxes for rendering, etc)
> 3) people's linux boxes
Just b/c boxes are used in a certain way doesn't mean that this feature is
not important in a great number of scenerios.
> >2. many people can login at the same time - true multi-user, good
>
> And again, why is this good? Why is it good, right or necessry?
B/c the words are used in the traditional way, in the manner that they
were first used. When people are changing words around it's usually b/c
they are lying to you. Also, this gives you more features, and solves all
the problems I had all ready listed.
> >That's in r5 all ready.
> >Beos looks like it was being prepared to be multi-user before they died. I
> >can create files w/ different owners and groups. Looks to me amazingly
> >like unix. I like.
>
> No, it is not all in R5. I would challenge you to set up two users who log in
> and have
> different home directories. It *isn't* there.
Hmm. I didn't say that it was all there. Read above again. Read over the
part that says "being prepared to be multi-user". Look at how different
files have different owners and groups. Please don't change what I say
before you respond to it. It's not nice.
> >> The goal here is to keep little Johnny from seeing Dad's etoys.com cache
> >> and seeing what
> >> he is getting for Christmas, not to keep hackers out of a web site.
> >
> >Well, it's not supposed to be a server, but there are all ready a port of
> >apache. I'm sure that's going to be seen as a Bad ThingTM as the vibe from
> >this list is that options are bad as they confuse people, and the dumbest
> >person is king.
>
> This is just offensive. Options are not bad. Options are not free, either.
> There is a *COST* to every feature that you include.
They are all ready there. I was going to deliver other things as well and
was screamed at. Who is this offensive to anyway? I was the one offended,
and I'm responing to that.
> Look at Linux to see how that works.
> I think that it is a very foolish perspective to think that OBOS (or BeOS or
> Linux or
> Windows or ...) can be everything to every one. That is what I see as the
> real issue, here.
I don't think I'm going to have much of a say in how it's going to be
unless I learn more about coding so you don't have to yell at me and tell
me what not to do. I'm not your enemy.
I was just answering a confusion: see the parent. Someone said that
multi-user means many different things. I agreed and pointed out two of
them. No need to burst a blood vessel over clarity.
> >> What you outline above is about the most complex scheme that I would
> >> think that OBOS should support.
> >
> >If I really want multi-user support then I'll put it in there. I'm not
> >going to whine about wanting it in there.
Again, don't worry. I'm not begging for cool features. I'm not telling
people what to do. I was just answering a common confusion.
Maybe I was wrong.
Fred
Other related posts:
