| 1 |
Does Window$ and MacO$ users, with all "facilities" and "system |
| 2 |
security controls" they have in their OSes are protected from shooting |
| 3 |
themselves in the foot? I don't think so. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
In this case particularly I don't think the risk is too big, since |
| 6 |
global customizations must be done only by root. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I think that on the cited commercial OSes global customizations, that |
| 9 |
can break the entire system, can be easily done by any user. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On 7/15/05, Michael Marineau <marineam@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 13 |
> > On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote: |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> >>Thanks... I saw that "bug" and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and |
| 16 |
> >>nothing was done. Did you know why? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never |
| 20 |
> > posted to the bug |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > the only thing we really have against it is the potential of developer |
| 23 |
> > abuse ... that is, we feel that ebuild authors should *never* install a file |
| 24 |
> > there, it should only ever contain files created by the user |
| 25 |
> > -mike |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My |
| 28 |
> vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the |
| 29 |
> oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> speeking of shooting feet, it's be a pretty interesting statistic to see |
| 32 |
> how many times people have borked their system by accidently replacing |
| 33 |
> their fstab :-P |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> Michael Marineau |
| 37 |
> marineam@g.o |
| 38 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 39 |
> Oregon State University |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives