actually, microsoft took the other approach, the one you're
suggesting is preferrable. they delivered a product
(outlook) with all safety features off, all doors open. how
many windows users knew to switch their scripting host off?
that's right, almost nobody - that's why LOVEYOU caught on
like a house on fire.
i don't understand what your problem is with safety as
default? if you want to dismantle your system security, feel
free to - mandrake won't come chasing you down. just don't
expect to be able to log in to irc servers around the world
(as was mentioned), or to have your mail and posts to
various lists accepted... other people may feel you're
stupid enough not to listen to, or ignorant enough not to
know better, hence nudging you in the right direction. it's
their right.
...joakim
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Michael R. Batchelor wrote:
> >I find it arrogant that Mandrake would deliberatly cripple the
> functionality
> >of programs in order to prohibit certain behavior that they have
> decided is
> >inappropriate. This kind of "I know better than you" unwelcomed
> >paternalistic coercion is awfully Microsoft-ish. Is this the direction
> >Mandrake is heading? Yuck!
>
> I think it more like good solid design. We work machines in my line of
> work, and without safety limits it's easy to get killed or hurt very
> badly. So when we design something we put restrictions on what the
> operator can do. However, it's also necessary for someone to fix it
> occasionally, so we design a "maintenance mode" to defeat the safeties,
> but we don't make it easy to do by accident. (That's what root is, the
> UNIX "maintenance mode" user.)
>
> Now, after the machine is in the plant there is absolutely nothing in
> world to stop the plant personnel from shoving a pencil in the safety
> switch and running the machine with the doors open. And there is nothing
> in the world stopping you from reconfiguring anything on your machine to
> work any way you feel like it should work. But, in the same way it would
> be irresponsible of us to deliver a machine that's unsafe to operate, it
> would be irresponsible of Mandrake to deliver a configuration that's
> unsafe. (And if you really want to see somebody making decisions for
> you, install an OpenBSD system. It's locked up tight as a drum! And they
> do it on purpose!)
>
> Michael
>
>
