🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PREECE.91Nov13194626@neptune.urbana.mcd.mot.com> preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes:
>In article <7371@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>|   Cool!  No superusers?  No permissions/prohibitions?  No passwords?
>|   I've never seen a programmer that put any of that crap
>|   as a priority.
>
>If you've never met a programmer who valued "that crap", your experience
>must be painfully limited...

Change the semantics, make up an insult; it's the Usenet way...

"Priority" != "value"

Given a sufficiently large feature-space, I'm sure I'd
include prophylactics, but I'd never include the ability to
accidentally shut your coworkers out of a project directory
while you head off to Vegas for the week, to lock up the
diags to prevent emergency maintenance, nor to deliberately
cripple a user out of imperiousness.  User distinctions are
obviously useful, but in my opinion only for identification
and accounting.

Security, as anyone building secure systems has discovered,
is a physical matter, and no amount of software moating
can take the place of locking the door to the terminal room.

				--Blair
				  "Do you have the root
				   password of every machine
				   you use? What is it?"