[openbeos] Re: OBOS Security
- From: Fred K Ollinger <follinge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:03:01 -0400 (EDT)
> >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.
This is more than a feature. This will make this useless in a lot of
places. That might be ok. Some people might like to have patient data wide
open or to spend hours trying to sort out files. That's what happens when
we don't have multi-user.
> >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.
I didn't say that they were dumb. I was pointing out a better way to do
things, and how the unix way can save time.
> >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.
Well so do I. See example above.
> >> >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 your perogative. I was just pointing out _real life_ cases where
this is _necessary_. Not a cute feature in a checkbox, but necessary. If
obos doesn't have it then I can't recommend it for that setting.
>
> >> >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.
My mistake. I almost didn't respond at all to this thread b/c it needs to
die, but I had to apologize.
Below "That's in r5 all ready", I clarify what this meant, however. Thanks
for retaining it as I would have been confused and please accept my
apology.
> >> >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.
Why am I offensive? I didn't say it originally. I am paraphrasing the
basic gist of what I'm getting on this list. Don't like it? Then flame
those people don't flame me. We seem to be on the same side.
> No one has said that, or meant that.
Yes they did. I hear this over and over again. "Too many options are a bad
thing as they confuse Joe Sixpack." and "Don't port that piece of crap!"
These are things people have said to me when I have suggested porting some
things. I was hoping that maybe I'd get one person to help, or I'd be
ignored at worst. I didn't expect the amount of vile hatred that is summed
up above. You think it's offensive. So do I.
I find it darned offensive that good people deify the stupiest people. I
find if offensive that good ideas are flamed b/c they aren't instantly
grasped by those who are too lazy or stupid to read. So, in the offense
game, I have a big lead. :)
> 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.
But I have showed how this lack of complexity up front, single user, can
lead to greated complexity down the road. Maybe the conservation of
complexity it true. I don't know.
I do know that there is a lot of offensive things being said, I just
paraphrase them. I think that they are funny. I choose not to get mad, but
to laugh. Maybe that in itself is going to be offensive to someone. Well,
if you are offended by this idea: "ha ha."
> 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".
I don't think that R1 should be any multi-user than beos R5. I realize
that the R5 goal is very sound. I was just showing what MU meant to me and
why I think it has it's place on the desktop.
> 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.
I didn't know that. I do remember seeing someone from beos promise to have
MU support someday. I wish I could find the link. This is what I was
referring to when I said that "it's in there all ready." I meant the seeds
for true MU.
I didn't know that it would be so hard to achieve.
Fred
Other related posts:
