🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41i3e5$j3n@sashimi.wwa.com>, hucke@sashimi.wwa.com (Matt
Hucke) wrote:

> rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) writes:
> 
> >The biggest problem with UNIX from the standpoint of a typical user is the
> >routine lack of feedback. The very feature that draws many people to UNIX
> >(Of course I want to delete/replace/remove/move/whatever that thing. I
> >told you, why are you asking me if it's OK?!) is the very feature that
> >makes UNIX a bad choice for most.
> 
> alias mv='mv -iv'
> alias rm='rm -iv'
> 
> ...etc.  With a bit of work when setting up the system, it can be made
> more friendly to novices.

With a bit of work. The problem with UNIX is that everything requires a
bit of work. In a market where people want to plug in their computer and
start using it before they plow through 2000 pages of UNIX system
administration, UNIX is simply too much work.

> > Since UNIX doesn't give a damn if you
> >delete half of your hard drive without warning you, or care if anybody on
> >the planet can get root access to your system - that makes it dangerous
> >for novices.
> 
> At least Unix has the concept of a separate 'root' login.  A new user
> that doesn't know that password won't be able to do much harm.  On
> Windoze or a Mac, there is no security, and anyone can delete or alter
> vital files - typing 'edit win.ini' or dragging some application's
> folder to the trash, or deleting someone else's documents.

You are correct. That is a good thing. The Mac should and will someday
have a similar feature - but since it is still a single user system, the
UNIX solution is wrong as well. A person needs to know an awful lot
between pulling that machine out of the box and having a secure, stable,
usable UNIX system (comparable to MacOS, or Win or OS/2).

> I was in a Radio Shack[tm] last week, and the PC there was refusing to
> run windows because of a memory manager problem.  The Radio Shack[tm]
> drones couldn't figure it out, so they ignored it... I called up an
> editor and fixed the typo in config.sys... it would have been just as
> easy to do something malicious.  If that had been a Unix box, the
> password would have been required to fix it, but it wouldn't have been
> messed up in the first place.

Well, I'm not about to defend a config.sys file, but Win should at least
be able to protect the system minimally - from accidents at the very
least. The Mac does have this minimal protection but no more without going
to AtEase, and that is a comprimise. The personal OS's need work, no
doubt, but UNIX does as well. Unfortunately UNIX's problems are such that
they render the system unusable to a real novice.

> > UNIX assumes you know what you are doing, the Mac and Win
> >assume that you do not - which sounds safer to you?
> 
> 'safer'?  It's much easier to render a Mac/Windows box completely
> unusable (until the OS is reinstalled) than to do the same to a Unix
> machine. 

Out of the box? Before the sysadmin has gotten to it? No, I don't think
so. The UNIX argument only stands if an admin has gotten to the system -
that's not the market that Macs and PCs are sold.

> > Do you prefer exposed
> >wires in your home (you should know not to touch them) or do you keep them
> >under layers of protection (just in case you accidentally touch them)? 
> 
> I prefer to have the layers insulated, but somewhere that they can be
> reached if maintenance is needed, rather than sealed beneath a layer
> of concrete.

UNIX is buying a home where all of the wires are exposed to be insulated
later by a thorough, consciencious person. MacOS and Win is buying a home
where all of the wires are insulated, a few by a layer of concrete. You
decide which is more appropriate for the average person.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine