Couldn't agree more with both of you. Anyone in this day in age uses regular backups, not just when they THINK their might be a system failure. If you have work you care about, but you don't backup on a regular basis, you are a douche. Its so easy to do, and you should do it even if Blender developes some new-fangled python-sandboxing.
I think the bigger danger is if these superflous security featurse are actually attempted, and more critical things ( ie general stability) are overlooked or neglected. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:12 AM, §ĥřïñïďĥï Ŗäö <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Raul Fernandez Hernandez < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all :) > > > > WARNING: this email is not targeted to anybody in particular, is just my > > opinion and I like to learn from my mistakes :) > > > > I think is good to think in all threat possibilities that could arise in > > the future but I really don't understand all the paranoia that has being > > awaken toward Blender. > > It makes more harm than good because it introduce the fear in the > > Blender ecuation , the user that will make .blend content that is worth > > downloading and sharing will not burn his hard earned reputation in > > making scripts for stealing user information or deleting user files. > > C'mon we are 3D guys working hard for making .... well, you guess, 3D , > > is very different from people killing time writing trash on Word or > > Power-points and also from a malicious developer point of view the user > > share of Blender (and really from any 3D app) is not worth it. > > In all the blender history mention a case when something like that have > > happened before. > > And while that is not a strong argument that prevent such situations > from > > happening in the future I think such level of security is an SO duty, not > > an app task. > > Blender could not live without python and making mechanisms for avoid > > automatic and hiding script running is OK, but I think we should not > > take that further. > > > > Regards farsthary > > > > > > > > > I agree with you anytime..:) . Instead of concentrating on such "security " > issues which is not worth the effort because IF a person intends to put > some > malicious code HE WILL put it at any cost even with high security settings > .. :( ... I would rather suggest to get the API to a stable condition and > make it more straight forward than thinking about security. As i told in my > earlier mail that making a software more secure makes it highly unusable in > a production environment which needs a lot of automation .. just my 2 cents > . :) > > regards > shrinidhi > > > > -- > Ęvęņ ģóđ fąįļş ŧŏ ųŋđęŗşţąņđ å ĥųmąņ ųņţĭļ ĥĭş đęąţĥ > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/shrinidhi666 > http://www.shrinidhi666.wordpress.com > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3025616 > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- www.watchmike.ca _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
