1237e10c0945
tech



Hello Pascal - 

CA>> There are many Linux executables that operate at a lower
CA>> level than is wise IMO. I realize there are purists that
CA>> insist this is a good thing but really, for general use,
CA>> it's not IMO. 

PS> Basic Unix design principle - everything is a file. This
PS> has huge benefits, namely that a program does not have to
PS> care whether it operates on a file or a device. If it were
PS> otherwise, stuff like tar would need different code for
PS> writing to a file or writing to a tape drive. It also works
PS> the other way around - creating filesystems on image files
PS> instead of devices. That would probably not be possible at
PS> all if devices had a different interface from files. 

The 'huge' benefits to everything being just a file are more a
benefit to programmers unwilling/unable to write automated
detection of file types with proper error trapping to avoid
foul-ups. The days of all systems persons having programming
experience are in the past. 

PS> General use doesn't apply here, mostly. Most work should be
PS> from a user account, and a user should not have write
PS> access to critical device nodes. root can shoot himself in
PS> the foot, yes, but in many more ways than accidentally
PS> writing to a device file. 

I would advocate alternatives to 'cp' that are restricted
within the binary itself rather than rely on file attributes
(permissions). I am convinced that daily use by less
knowledgeable persons as a desktop environment will only be
practical when the average user cannot trash the system even if
they try to. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/