> >many users do not change from the defaults.) This is merely a contained
> >and sensible response to severely limit that threat.
>
> That's not in dispute. I think it's a good feature. I just think
> that the option to disable it should be included.
The only thing you have said this will gain you is easier admin in
multi-user installations. My view is we should fix whatever is making it
hard (having trouble editing mozreg.dat?) rather than allowing salting to
be disabled.
> >stored in a directory called "Profiles" and not one called "Users50". Why
> >does it offend your sense of aesthetics?
>
> You might as well ask why I like the music I do, enjoy the food I
> do, etc. <grin> You're correct when you say that the very point of
> salting is what I object to on a personal level. I don't like
> randomness.
You don't use crypto at all, then? Or play computer games?
> Or, more precisely, I don't having programs do something
> I specifically instruct them not to do.
You haven't specifically instructed it not to do it. You've not
specifically instructed it to do it. There's a difference. You don't
specifically instruct Mozilla to remember your preferences, but it does.
You've asked Mozilla to "create me a profile". It's done that.
> >You are, of course, referring to Ben Bucksch, the owner of Beonex, whose
>
> I never mentioned any names, you said it not me! <grin> I did not
I have no idea why you think mentioning his name is a problem. It's not
like he makes a secret of it. I'm very impressed - trying to make a living
like that is a hard thing to do, and I wish him very well.
> realise that he owned the company - that makes many things much
> clearer.
Why would you still have been offended if a company representative made
the pitch? Are company executives the only people allowed to work in
Sales?
> >the behaviour you wanted. If this behaviour is useful to you, this does
> >not seem unreasonable.
>
> As much as I might like to see the software do exactly what *I*
> want - I have a stronger belief in the "software for all" model. If
You can't have software for all, because All do not all want the same
thing. For example, the person who wants a browser for their Palm Pilot
can't use exactly the same code as the person who wants one on Windows, or
the person who wants one in their set-top box. Different features for
different uses.
> I'm in the minority here then I think that Mozilla's current behaviour
> should stand. Discussions of capitalism aside, while I'm sure money
> can be made on the project - and more power to anybody who takes the
> opportunity to make such profit,
Trust me, selling Mozilla services and making a profit are not necessarily
connected. :-)
> I firmly believe that what "open
> source" SHOULD be is one in which contributions and changes are made
> because of personal belief,
If you believe this, then I'm sure a few Netscape engineers would not be
contributing. I'm sure that, if I were them, I might find the extra hassle
of cooperating with mozilla.org a pain at times. But they contribute
because their employer says they should. Is that wrong?
> >On the contrary. Mozilla's license was expressly designed so that
> >companies such as Beonex, Netscape, Intel, Nokia, Eazel etc. could take
> >the code and enhance it, and make money from that. Netscape adds the
> >proprietary AOL Instant Messenger. Nokia are doing set-top boxes with
> >Gecko. Beonex is concentrating on the corporate market.
>
> Just a quick point (if I can ever claim to make anything like
> that): What you're talking about are additions to the base code. What
> was relayed to me was that the base code itself could be altered with
> the simply application of money in somebody's pocket.
There's no distinction, apart from the fact that, had Ben made the mod, he
would have had to make the patches available to _you_ when he gave you the
custom Moz.
Gerv
