Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 04:24:11 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: UNIX on the Desktop (was: Re: Why no Indians and Arabs?) Message-ID: <3C1DE3EB.8AB3C4E0@mindspring.com> References: <20011216112759.U16958-100000@localhost> <002f01c1866e$1e4d9510$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DB7EB.9232204A@mindspring.com> <001101c186dd$5ab94430$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C1DCDAC.CEA3DEAF@mindspring.com> <003301c186eb$bf1e8710$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > I'm not. See above. Credentials are only meaningful in multiuser > environments, however. In a single-user environment, everyone always has > the same credentials, so they become irrelevant. This is false. Credentials are incredibly useful for keeping single users from being able to aim guns at their feet, without extraordinary effort. I would argue that the inability to delete the active Windows swap file is a locking issue on the order of credential based locking, since both control ability of the user to manipulate a resource, and which resources are regarded as system vs. user. As such, there is no difference in "inconvenience". There are many other examples of access controlled resources/objects in Windows. > > THere's really nothing inconvenient about > > credential enforcement, when it is done > > correctly. > > It requires more effort than no credential enforcement, whether it is done > correctly or not. And it is often unnecessary. No, it requires more effort to turn it off. Have you tried browsing to your C:\windows\system directory in Explorer lately? You have to explicitly OK the navigation, as these are protected directories. If something is done correctly, the only effort is on the part of the programmers of the OS, not the users. Since users of the OS out number programmers 100,000 to 1, then if something would save 1 hour of user time on average, it's worth 100,000 programmer hours to make happen. I'm sure I could do everything I've talked about, given 12 man years in which to accomplish it. 8^). It's like the Steve Jobs argument about cutting 30 seconds off the Macintosh boot time: sell 1,000,000 machines, and for evey 30 seconds you cut off the boot time, you've saved an entire human life. > > So even without "multiuser" or "multicredential", > > I get the same level of enforcement that yo state > > is the primary reason to not have "multiuser" or > > "multicredential" support in a desktop. > > You are not representative. You are not representative of someone qualified to judge whether or not I am representative. 8^). > > Then you were well aware that Windows was not > > an intrinsic part of the OS, but was instead an > > application program that ran as a graphical > > user shell, capable of "fork/exec" type > > operations, and that you boot to DOS, not Windows, > > and the Windows startup has more to do with the > > initial command loaded being "command" or "win". > > Yes, I am, which makes me wonder why you feel compelled to explain it. I felt compelled because you were obvious ignoring it. It's nice to know from your response that it wasn't ignorance, but the inconvenince of the facts to your argument, which caused that omission. 8^). > > Of course, since once again, they defeat your > > binary view of the universe... 8^). > > No, they simply aren't significant players. Nobody cares about Lindows, > except maybe Lindows, Inc. You are not representative. > > Sure. That's what scripting languages are for. > > Most people don't need to do that sort of thing, > > though, for a non-enterprise installation ... > > And those who don't are not system administrators, and thus do not require a > graphic interface to these functions, either. They require it _because_ they aren't system administrators. > > ... and even if they do, the number of people > > they have to support is small enough that they > > can "live with the pain" of GUI administration. > > If it is painful, then it is not as convenient as you first asserted, is it? It's only painful when doing things at an enterprise level. If you are going to delete text and replace it with an ellipsis, at least make it clear that that is what you are doing, by placing the ellipsis in brackets, OK. Thanks. > > I rather expect Apple to start selling rack-mount > > systems as OS/X becomes more popular... > > I don't. They've modified the system too much and turned it away from a > server application. Besides, it would not be in line with their sacred > mission. Your opinion, of course. History of most technology companies would disagree with you, including the history of Microsoft. Almost without exception, companies which have remained in any market and active have sold up market as their products matured, in order to maintain both their profit margin, and their rate of increase. I suggest reading: The Innovators Dilemma Clayton M. Christensen Harrper Collins (HarperBusiness) ISBN: 0-06-662069-4 and paying special attention to the documentation of the cases of the disk, mechanical excavator, and Woolworth/Woolco (and other "discount" stores). There are several other books which show the disasterous effects on comapnies unwilling to change their margin and/or profit model, including the BMW attempt to introduce a lower market brand. In contrast, we have "Lexus" and "Audi" upmarket selling by seperate division brand creation. Relative to its involvement in the personal computer industry, Microsoft has only recently started selling upmarket into the server software niche. History of other industries indicates that it will need to continue to move upmarket, as time goes on. Frankly, Microsoft has leveraged its monopoly position on the desktop (a position you seem hell-bent on being the appologist for, coming up with rationalization after rationalization) in order to force what is probably premature entry into the server market on its part, rather than moving naturally up-market as a result of increased product quality. One can't fault them for the viability of the approach as a chasm-crossing strategy. See also: Crossing The Chasm Geoffrey A. Moore (Regis McKenna, Inc.) Harper Collins (HarperBusiness) ISBN: 0-88730-717-5 Eventually, I expect that Microsoft will spin-off or simply "decide to abandon" the desktop market. This may occur sooner than later; it has remained delayed because of their controlling interest in their desktop applications division, even though the Windows desktop profits have been mostly marginalized. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C1DE3EB.8AB3C4E0>