Flogging dead horses :-)
At 15:04 15/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote:
>"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
<delenda est...>
> >
> > Personally I think its a less than optimal solution. Permission management
> > of files belongs in the underlying operating system and providing a
> > password which doesn't actually do anything is worse than not providing
> > one at all.
> >
> > Simon
>
>It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
>versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
>management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
>of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant.
Hmm. Its not best possible cost because it fixes the wrong
problem. Providing a non-functional passwording system on a more secure
operating system would simply irritate the users of those systems.
>Since most office computers are ON all day, it would be nice to at least have
>the OPTION to "manage" my risk. Also, at home, I don't want to necessarly
>protect my entire PC (i usually turn it on and walk away and do other things;
>when i return, I want it to be booted COMPLETELY - and not have to enter a
>password and wait AGAIN until the login finishes).
There are all sorts of mechanisms that allow that on both secure and non
secure operating systems. A screen saver with a password is only
one. Leaving a machine on without some kind of control would just avoid
any security anyway. It would take a lot longer to open a browser and
enter a password for the profile than it would to enter a password on a
screen saver or keyboard lock.
>Please vote for this bug at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16489
Ahhhh, but not all the votes are counted ;-)
Simon
