Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay

From: Martin McCann (martinmcc_at_orbweavers.co.uk)
Date: 03/30/05

  • Next message: Martin McCann: "Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay" 
    To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:47:01 +0100

    On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 23:00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
    > Bart Silverstrim writes:
    >
    > > From the way you were complaining, I had the impression that MS was
    > > bending backwards to help in issues while the FreeBSD people were
    > > immature children.
    >
    > They do a much better job than the FreeBSD project does, no doubt about
    > that.

    then stop complaining to a list of 'kiddies', and use that.

    >
    > > Is this evidence to the contrary, that MS isn't the
    > > pinnacle of perfection in dealing with every software issue?
    >
    > No, it's evidence that you never talk to developers when you call the
    > support line.
    >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOSS
    >
    > Thanks. Just today I was hoping for some new acronyms, it's been hours
    > since I last encountered one.

    If you have never encountered the term FLOSS, you are not the open
    source user you claim to be, it is a common term.

    >
    > > Especially in projects driven by money and politics in a workplace, and
    > > with looming deadlines.
    >
    > Yes, but also in projects with no profit motive at all. Many developers
    > love to write code, but hate to design and test. So they bloat what
    > they write just for their own enjoyment.
    >
    > > You can do the job to get it shoved out the door or do the job right.
    >
    > Doing it right often means doing it at a loss.

    And what open source developer does anything but 'doing it at a loss'?.

    >
    > > B) The "More popular thus more exploited" is a crap argument.
    >
    > The statistics seem to support it.

    Statistics will prove whatever you want it to prove, most people with
    intelligence look beyond the given conclusion, and make their own.

    >
    > > Windows was "designed" for single user non-network desktops.
    >
    > Not Windows NT and its successors. They were designed as network-aware
    > multiuser desktops. They originally had a strong server emphasis,
    > although that has gradually shifted back towards the more profitable
    > desktop, to the detriment of server environments.
    >
    > > That "30 year old UNIX" was better designed for network sharing and
    > > multiple users in scant resources.
    >
    > Yes. Unfortunately it's a poor desktop.

    Depends on what you want as a desktop - desktop != WIMP.

    >
    > > If apologists would get their heads out of their butts they'd see that
    > > it isn't always "There's more Windows, thus easier to exploit!", it's
    > > "Windows' design is inherently less secure, so it's easier to target!",
    > > as well as a healthy dose of "the average Windows user is more clueless
    > > than the average Linux user!" thrown in to boot.
    >
    > It's a bit of all of these, but mostly the number of installed seats and
    > the fact that it's a desktop used by unsophisticated users.
    >
    > > Many of the features in the recent "The Road to Windows "Longhorn"
    > > 2005" article on Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows seems oddly to
    > > match many of the features already available on OS X...
    >
    > Many features of OS X seem oddly to match many of the features
    > already available on Windows.

    Alternatively, many of the features of windows seem to match those of
    already available software.

    >
    > > Hmm, wonder why...could it be because of the security imposed by
    > > "UNIX" under OS X that makes that kind of model a decent tradeoff of
    > > usability and security in the first place?
    >
    > I have to smile when I hear UNIX held up as an example of a secure
    > system. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I suppose.
    >
    > Current Windows systems have a much stronger security model than UNIX;
    > it just isn't used, because users wouldn't be happy if they had to deal
    > with it.

    So what defines a secure system, if not the fact it is less prone
    breakens?

    >
    > > If it wasn't such a pain in the *** for Joe Sixpack to use, ideas in
    > > EROS would help a helluva lot more on the desktop for security.
    > > Security is an inconvenience. Users want mindless interactions.
    > > Somewhere it meets in the middle in order to be usable.
    >
    > Yes. But this isn't a problem with the OS.
    >

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Martin McCann: "Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay"