On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Dave wrote: > > And what if users have different wishes? > > I've already explained several times that the user doesn't own the > system. The physical user is governed by the owner of the system. > Therefore, the user's wishes must be compatible with the owner's > wishes. (If the owner is a dope, he'll lose users.) ...and users never do things they're not supposed to, and always follow all the rules, and all of the world's jails are completely empty, because everyone does what they're supposed to do all the time. You are living in Fantasyland. Your idealisms about the Unix Philosophy and about security simply don't work in the real world, where typical users are not programmers, and don't want to spend any more time than they absolutely have to learning how to use and configure computer software. Computers are a tool, and it should be simple and obvious how to use them, for the average computer user. This means big, bloated software, that does all the thinking for the user, because small, facile tools take too much effort for the average computer user to learn how to use them. What you don't get is, THIS IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT! And the LAST thing any normal computer user wants to think about is keeping their system secure. In their view, that is the programmers' and OS designers' job, not theirs. That's the simple reality of technology and the world of system administration. Until you can get a hold of this idea, and it sinks through into the parts of your mind that are capable of processing thought logically, nothing you have to say on this topic has any practical value whatsoever. Your philosophy is solely based on an extremely narrow view of computer users, which most people just simply don't fit into. Mutt, and indeed very few programs, should target only that segment of computer users as its audience. In the majority of cases, there are not enough of those users to make it worth the effort of developing tools that way. Even for users who LIKE this kind of environment, it's not right all the time. I myself am a die-hard fan of system administration via command line. But when it comes to image processing, which I do a lot of, I don't want to do this via a couple of dozen command-line utilities; I want GIMP. I want something that shows me in real time what I'm doing to my image, and allows me to do many different kinds of operations on the image without having to load the image into memory every damn time I want to change something, and undo what I just did if I don't like it. That model is totally stupid for the vast majority of image processing tasks. Not only that, but it is impossible in most computing environments, unless you explicitly save backups of every version of your file. And that makes it utterly impractical; doing so, and managing the versions, is tedious and time-consuming in the extreme. People have much better ways to spend their time. Yeah yeah versioning file system blah blah blah. Not everyone has access to one, or even knows what it is. In fact, practically no one does. It's not a viable solution for the vast majority of computer users. The Unix Philosophy is not the only game in town, and it is absolutely, positively, unequivocally NOT always the Right Thing. If you think it is, you're unbelievably narrow minded, and probably nuts. > > And what about binary distributions? > > By GPL, they must include source. Lots of software isn't GPL -- real software that real users want to use. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Description: PGP signature