Great analogy Michael!
Bambi
"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
