1237e11aaa18
tech



Hello Pascal - 

CA>> The 'huge' benefits to everything being just a file are
CA>> more a benefit to programmers unwilling/unable to write
CA>> automated detection of file types with proper error
CA>> trapping to avoid foul-ups. 

PS> This can be done even under the Unix model, all the
PS> programmer needs to do is use one stat() syscall and look
PS> at the resulting information. 

Apparently there are security issues at stake as well according
to what I find for "automount"? 

PS> The model of other operating systems, where files and
PS> devices have different ways to access them leads to more
PS> code in programs and thus more bugs. Also, there are often
PS> different interfaces to, say, serial ports and printer
PS> ports. And thus each kind of device gets their own
PS> interface (the Windows way) and the programmer needs to
PS> learn all of them - and they all work differently, which
PS> increases the risk of the programmer making a mistake.
PS> Under Unix, it's open(), then write() and/or read(), to any
PS> device. Always works the same way. 

Just a newbie here but doesn't *nix require that you address
the proper device (dev) in this scenario? With multiple device
drivers I would think many OS could stream all input and output
but maybe I'm missing something here? 

CA>> The days of all systems persons having programming
CA>> experience are in the past. 

PS> Still, some knowledge of the system is required. I have
PS> often seen Windows users tweak settings in their systems
PS> config to and fro without knowing what they do. The reason
PS> being "I have seen it working for someone when they did
PS> twiddle this setting". This may be no problem on a home
PS> system, but even those are nowadays often connected to the
PS> internet. I wouldn't say programming experience is needed,
PS> but the basic principles of the system one needs to know. 

Depends on the level of involvement. Users who only want to
browse the Internet and send/receive email don't need to tweak
the OS nor understand a great deal to become successful. 

CA>> I would advocate alternatives to 'cp' that are restricted
CA>> within the binary itself rather than rely on file
CA>> attributes (permissions). 

PS> Sometimes the admin needs to be able to cp to a device file
PS> (or more likely dd). Also, default permissions on hard disk
PS> devices and such are to deny normal users write access. 

I wouldn't remove 'cp', I would just hide it from casual users
and replace it with a more intelligent version. ;-) 

PS> Root is allowed to do everything, but that is sometimes
PS> necessary to repair a damaged system. 

On a PrimeCom mainframe several decades ago I stumbled onto the
'futils' which had a different shell and was not supposed to
even be available to me. It gave me system wide access even to
the sysops personal file areas. :-) 

PS> What you advocate could be done, it's just that nobody so
PS> far seems to have found it necessary because basically
PS> normal user accounts are safe to use, no matter what you
PS> happen to type in. All that can happen is that a user
PS> accidentally deletes all his own files. 

If that 'user' is an employee it could be an expensive lesson.
I still think work needs to be done to prevent some of this
from happening at a desktop terminal. 

CA>> I am convinced that daily use by less knowledgeable
CA>> persons as a desktop environment will only be practical
CA>> when the average user cannot trash the system even if they
CA>> try to. 

PS> You can't trash the system from a user account. Only root
PS> can do that - and all distributions today setup a normal
PS> user during installation. In addition, root gets a set of
PS> tools (GUI stuff) to manage system configuration, thus
PS> reducing the risk of the admin making silly mistakes. 

I've not had access to a full Linux install as yet but using
mini-installs I find it necessary to be logged in as 'root' to
install software that I have downloaded. If this is typical
then all home users of Linux face this same dilemma that 'ready
or not' they must be 'root' at times to get the system where
they want it to be with all packages they require. 

PS> Trashing the system is all relative, of course. No system
PS> is secure without backups - hard disks can go bad, or even
PS> the whole system in case of a lightning strike. 

What I've been reading lately tells me that even burning image
copies to CDs is not foolproof indefinitely. I don't see as
much effort being put into securing copies beyond a few years
and that worries me. Data can be useful for more than a few
years and my source code is valuable (to me) as a reference if
nothing else. 

PS> Back when I used DOS and Windows, I almost never made
PS> backups and as a result have lost many things that I wrote
PS> in those days. 

When writing a very time consuming talking app for my children
to help them learn to read a chronometer my oldest boy, who was
about 6 or 7 at the time, noticed the red button at the back of
the machine and pushed it turning off the machine (before I
could save the finished program). I started again and rewrote
it from memory as best I could and, you guessed it, he did it
again! I waited about 2 months before trying (and succeeding)
the third time. I was so angry I couldn't focus on the program
anymore. 

PS> I switched to Linux in 1998, and I still have all the
PS> documents and programs from then that were worth keeping. 

I have printouts of software I wrote on an APPLE that are past
yellow moving to brown and are becoming brittle. If you live
long enough you eventually lose everything it seems. :-\ 

PS> The Unix way gives all power to the admin, including the
PS> power to shoot your own foot or blow away your whole leg.
PS> With power comes responsibilty. ;) 

I have no problem with access at low levels. I just don't think
it is for everyone and Linux needs to be 'everyone friendly' to
become a viable desktop OS. 

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

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