Derek Broughton wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > >>>> My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the >>>> masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for". >>>> >>> I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already >>> accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bollixed servers >>> with MS tools. So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a >>> better, more secure, solution isn't going to help. >>> >>> >> Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice >> their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that >> Ubuntu has to do the same. >> > > That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same. Really, it's > insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't > be done. > >
No, that is not what we are suggesting. Not with that uber list of capabilities outlined in the beginning. >> The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ >> proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. >> > > Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. So we desperately need tools > that can limit the hazards. > Which translates to limited functionality tools that enable a 'share folder' with share level security only or simple predefined configurations. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
