J
Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US
Bob Peterson wrote: >As for your openness idea. i am not all that thrilled with it. I sort >of like the security I have knowing that the new electrician/hacker on >third shift can't rewrite my RLL complier to do what he thinks is the way >it should be, ***** If that's what you think Open means, then you have missed the entire point. It doesn't mean that you have to give your machine operators source code, compilers, etc. Linux/Unix offers a stronger security model than Windows anyway. (Especially for the local machine. If you are at the machine under NT, you have access to everything. With Linux/Unix, you can still lock out areas of the hard drive and OS based on login account. This is how you would keep Joe Hacker out of the compilers.) You think that the idea is to implement a security system and then ignore it? >Those of us in the trenches have enough problems just getting machines >out the door and keeping them running, without having to worry about >learning another complex operating system. ***** Believe me, you do not speak for all of us "in the trenches". Some of us are actually still willing to try to expand our knowledge, rather than proclaiming that "This is what has worked before, so it must be true that it will always be the best". You are starting to sound like someone "out of the trenches" and in the corner office somewhere. The day I stop wanting to learn is the day I die. I may continue to breathe and eat, but I will be dead. Joe Jansen