-0 I do not have a strong opinion. I agree with the general sentiment voiced by others that secure by default is good but also agree that this should not unnecessarily lead to problems.
But I think that both criteria can be fulfilled: Force the user to actively choose secure or insecure. This will lead to one more parameter in one of the two cases but this should be a tiny problem for users. Cheers, Andreas --- Bertrand Delacretaz: > Hi, > > My impression is that most Stanbol users don't need any security > within Stanbol - how about making no-security the default option for > all our launchers, disabling all security restrictions? You're then > (hopefully) back to Stanbol as it worked before those security > features were introduced. > > Those of us who need security can then create a launcher (called > "secure" probably) where security is enabled and run relevant tests on > it. > > Here's my +1 > > -Bertrand > >
