Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay

[Martin McCann]

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 butt 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.
>