[openbeos] Re: OBOS Security
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 21:41:20 -0400
>> >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.
Very good point - many people do look at it that way. People compare feature
lists
on their software to figure out what to buy.
>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.
That is what it means to me, too. But so many people see having logins as
the same as MU that I have to be clear. ;-)
>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.
>
[snip]
>
>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!
I don't think that the doctor is necessarily dumb, just computer clueless.
Actually, I think that having a simple face on the OS is a good idea for
niches like that.
>> 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.
Fair enough, though I think that looking at real life usage is the best
predictor
of how to build something.
>> >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.
At what cost? If it makes the system bigger, slower or more complex, it may
not be worth it (depending on the magnitude).
>> >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.
I intentionally quoted everything that you said.
Particularly the "That's in r5 all ready".
I didn't change it.
In fact, though, Dianne (IIRC) said that they tried to do a login type thing,
but that
so much software broke that they couldn't ship it.
>> >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.
I think that summing up this conversation in " options are bad as they confuse
people, and the dumbest person is king."
is very off base and pretty offensive. No one has said that, or meant that.
OTOH, BeOS is all about eliminating unnecessary complexity. Making things
easier.
I *can* admin a Unix box. I *choose* not to, because I want to do my coding,
not be a sysadmin.
In the same way, I think that OBOS should be a tool to get things done, not a
means unto itself.
>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.
This is why I hate email, sometimes, because emotion sometimes comes through
where it is not intended. I don't see you as the enemy at all. Not in the least.
I see you as a person who has an idea, who is passionate in pursuing it and who
doesn't agree with the other side of that issue, yet. :-) Same as me.
>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.
None burst here. ;-)
>> >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.
I never thought that you were begging. Sorry if I gave that impression.
I really want to have a good, quality discussion about this. Since day 1,
this has been something that people have disagreed on. Some people
are pro-MU, some are anti-MU and some are "who cares".
One thing of note, in my mind, is that BeOS was the "media OS". And OBOS is
hoping to follow along in those steps, at least somewhat. Multi-user, at least
without a retargetable
app_server, doesn't help with that in the least. At least 1/2 of the API is
completely
incompatible with someone remote accessing the machine. That, I think, is
something
of note.
Other related posts:
