wayne, steve wrote: > Is Free as in Freedom access to hardware completely > egalitarian; ie, all users have equal access to that > hardware? What does this mean, exactly?
This is a 'core' question. We must use logic to find the answers to such problems instead of relying upon popularity by vote. Consider the most simple case where two people share access to one computer. If both users pay exactly 50% of the initial and recurring costs, then they should each have equal access - meaning they each get one-half of: * Disk space * CPU time * Network throughput * Memory use * Time at the Terminal - assuming there is one and only one Keyboard/Video/Mouse. * Maybe some other details These are the same kind of parameters any 'cloud' provider would advertise to potential users. Now imagine User#1 doesn't really need that much capacity, and (luckily) User#2 wants more. They talk it through and realize User#1 could pay less recurring Costs and User#2 could pay the difference, and so User#1 would then have less access because he is choosing to pay less of the costs. This seems logical to me. > Does the principle of least privilege apply to "Free > as in Freedom" access to hardware? This is also a 'core' question, and probably more difficult to answer. Some thoughts off the top of my head: * Even a single User who does not share access to his computer should choose to operate under the "Principle of Least Privilege". In other words, nobody should run as 'root' - even their own machine, except when necessary because it is just so dangerous. * I would like to hear Richard Stallman's thoughts on this considering his fight against passwords and administrative accounts/groups during his MIT years. "Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime." -- http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch07.html
