GNU, security, and RMS

[Paul Houtz]

bzs at bu-cs.bu.edu (Barry Shein) writes:

>>I disagree.  Maybe in a education environment no security may be okay, but I
>>can't see this in a commercial/governmental environment.  No security on the
>>computer is similar to allowing anyone to come into your office and look at
>>anything they please, and also to allow them to change anything they please. I
>>doubt if many people would like this.

>Although I'd probably agree with what you're trying to say I just want
>to point out that 10 Million PC's and about 1 Million Mac's say you're
>(we're?) wrong. There's no concept of security on those machines
>(heck, there's no concept of a "user" tho various things have been
>hacked on top for network add-on software.) I'd have to call that
>representative of "many" people. We can go back to "reason" but, hey,
>11 million user's voted with their pocketbooks, hard to dispute.

    Sorry Barry.  This is totally invalid.   The PC's are not multi-user
systems.   There is little need for security on a single user system.  The PC 
is like someones file cabinet or desk.  No one is SUPPOSED to be going through
someones PC files or desk or file cabinet (note that anyone who has sensitive
data on their pc has a physical lock on the machine).

    On a multi-user system, there are other people who are SUPPOSED to be 
accessing the system, so you have to have the equivalent of 
door/drawer/cabinet locks on peoples accounts, hence, security.