Skipping general offenses...
List manager: can we *please* just boot this guy until he comes back
as a real person? It's getting old.
Is it _that_ annoying to you? I could just keep silent if it is so, no
"booting" required. Though I have to say I don't understand how a handful
of emails to a mailing list someone happens to read can irritate them to
such extent. In passing, instead of a threat you could have simply let the
first response be. Were it really a piece of useless text, it would rot on
its own.
--On Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:11 AM -0700 ron minnich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Eris Discordia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, a terminal should not hold _any_ information on its users.
Where does the security of not keeping authentication information on a
so-called terminal go when you _keep_ it on the "terminal?" But with
multiple users you're going to need authentication. Right?
Eris, this is getting a little boring. Are you really this ignorant of
what's going on? I don't mind ignorance
per se but you keep wasting people's time as they try to explain CS
101 to you. Maybe you could start a blog and we could
all ignore it -- it's much easier that way.
My impression: the UNIX authentication "farce" happened because UNIX
began as a replacement to a time-sharing system for more or less
physically secure computers but then was downsized to an OS--many OS's,
in fact--also usable on personal computers, e.g. 386BSD.
Your impression? Well, that's one way to go at it.. Of course, there
is the option of acquiring knowledge. It is more work however.
If this is your picture of what happened then you need to go back and
do some reading.
You leave the "impression", to me anyway, that you read a lot but I
can not tell that you actually do much of anything. And, to top it
off, you exist only as an imaginary wikipedia entry.
List manager: can we *please* just boot this guy until he comes back
as a real person? It's getting old.
ron
