From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:11:35 GMT

In article 14478@athena.mit.edu, zmonster@athena.mit.edu (Eric M Hermanson) writes:
>In article <z1h3lbb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>In article 21934@cubetech.com, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
>>>In article <3gg359q@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>
>>>In fact, as installed, nextlogin.tiff has no write permissions on it.
>>>The only way to change it is as root.  Normal users cannot modify it
>>>or delete it.  Normal users cannot delete or modify _any_ of the
>>>system files.  This is called security - something Macintosh for the
>>>most part lacks without third party products.
>>
>>Normal users apparantly sometimes try to muck about with their
>>machine. If this requires root access, then they will do it
>>with root- and if that blows away all of the NeXTs user protection,
>>then they will do thing dangerously. And get burned.
>
>You need to have the root password to log in as root.  It is just not something
>you can just do "if you want to".  NeXT has made it so that average everyday
>people who buy NeXT's will never need to log in as root.  All configuration
>is done safely with preferences panels and the like.  

They do if they want to change the login tiff. If the preferences
panels can do this, then I will withdraw my objection.

>>
>>>Root is the superuser.  You can do *anything* as root.  The operating
>>>system assumes that if you are root then you know what your are doing,
>>>and it asks very few questions.
>>>  It is a simple matter to screw up the
>>>computer as root.
>>
>>Well, *it should not be*.
>
>No, it *should be*.  The whole idea of having root access is so that you
>can modify the operating system to suit your needs.  The idea of needing
>a root password to perform root tasks is what is call *security*.  On a Mac,
>all you need is the proper piece of software, and BOOM, you can screw up the
>entire operating system, no matter if your name is Root or if it is Joe Blow.

That's very nice, but IRRELEVANT.

You should be able to modify the OS that way WITHOUT danger. One of those
preferences panels say.

>>>  Therefore it is entirely this person's fault
>>>that he screwed up his machine, because he was mucking around as root
>>>without knowing what he was doing.
>>
>>Whose "fault" it is is ->totally irrelevant<-. The user got screwed;
>>the system didn't help. It should. Computers should not say
>>"you made your bed, now lie in it"; they should say "you screwed
>>up, so here I'll fix it for you.". (they should also make
>>it hard to screw up, but in this case I dont quite see how that
>>can be done. The best I can see is a warning saying "If that
>>file is gone, the system can't start!")
>
>NeXT has certain protective measures inplemented.  But I disagree with what
>you said - "The user got screwed; the system didn't help. It should."

Then we are in for quite an argument. :)

>  UNIX
>gives you the freedom to tap into it's power by allowing modifications to
>happen.

So does MacOS- but extensions isn't quite what you meant, I think. :)
The MacOS doesn't STOP them, it just doesn't provide a mechanism to
do them to users. (you can get one separately of course)

But I don't consider this a disadvantage. It is one if you wish to fiddle
with your system, of course, but most users do not. They want a system that
will work without fiddling. Putting power-user stuff in is fine, as long
as you dont put it where nonpowerusertypes will trip on it. That's one
sin Apple avoids in spades. :/

>  It would be very inefficient for the computer to ask "ARE YOU
>SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS??" every single time you want to change something
>while logged in as root.

You have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Incessant "Do you REALLY
want to press 'q'? REALLY?" messages are just annoying, and users
habitually dismiss them anyway so they do little good. But there
are LOTS of ways to make systems tougher. Minimize the amount of stuff
the system is dependant on that the user can destroy accidentally, and
provide auto-regeneration features as often as you can.

This is a perfect example. The NeXT should be able to life wo/ a login
tiff. If the user screws that up somehow, FINE. It should just do without
until the user fixes it. Or generate a new one on its own. Or use annother
one, since NeXTstep comes with more than one. (I hear)

>  As a regular user of NeXT, you will NEVER need to
>log in as root.

Unless you want to change your login tiff. :)

But what about the poor fool system administrators? Why should
they want a delicate system?

>  The NeXT grapical user interface lets you do everything
>a "normal" person needs to do.  If you *do* know what you are doing, you
>*may* log in as root if you know the root password.

I get it. Really. Got it a long time ago. It just doesn't excuse dismissing
resilliance!

>  There are certain
>low level commands you can do to improve some things if you like.  BUT, if
>you do screw up, you could damage a lot of stuff.

* precisely *

>  I am glad, at least, that
>there IS a root login ID on UNIX (NeXT) systems, because like I said earlier,
>it is a way to make the system secure.  On a Mac, any Joe Blow could muck
>up the system if he wanted to.

This is true. This is a real, live, NeXT advantage. In some places this
is critical. The NeXT can win on this alone.

>  On a UNIX box, you have to have the proper
>"clearance" to do such stuff.  I doubt the Department of Defense uses 
>anything BUT Unix in their secured areas.

Here's one such place. (bet they also allow some other things too..
with identical security features... :) )


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.