From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Need to convince boss 486's are *not* w
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:43:27 GMT

In article LzL@cuug.ab.ca, wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361) writes:
>In article <z1h3lbb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec315.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>
>>>Listen, if you delete nextlogin.tiff, you do not kill the computer.
>>>You do not have to reinstall the OS.  It is a simple matter make tell
>>>loginwindow to use a different tiff (there are zillions of them in the
>>>OS release).  This means two things:
>>
>>It requires the user to do repair work (perhaps there's
>>an easier way to do it than reinstallation, but that's not
>>the point)
>
>That is the point. If I use ResEdit to destroy the Finder, then turn the
>machine off, what do I do? Obviously I repair it.

Nobody's perfect. But at least ResEdit does not come with the
system.

You'd at least have to know how to get ResEdit to do that
kind of damage.

>>
>>Why on earth should the NeXT need to have a tiff at all? Shouldn't
>>it be able to get by without them? C'mon, there are lots of
>>ways to do this. Use that display postscript. Keep a tiff
>>(b&w?) in ROM. Search for and use one of those other tiffs in the
>>installation, if the one the user wants is no good.
>
>It doesn't need the tiff. If all else fails, you hold down two keys
>and get into the ROM monitor. This is all in the manual. I would
>guess that his problems were not related to changing the login tiff
>at all. I would guess they were playing around as root.

That would be fine IF it knew by itself that if it cant
do it the usual way, it should use this "ROM Monitor"
(and the monitor wasn't rediculously obscure. A text
screen asking for userid and password would be ok.

>>
>>>either:
>>>	This person deleted a *lot* of other files
>>>	or This person reinstalled the OS when he didn't have to
>>
>>I suspect the second; if the first he's being deliberate dishonest,
>>but if the second he just didn't get it. However, users quite
>>frequently do not get it. So it seems likely that he simply
>>did not have a clue how to fix the problem short of reinstalling.
>
>Users that don't get it shouldn't be rummaging around as root. This 
>isn't NeXT specific, this is Unix. The root account assumes the user
>is the system administrator : someone with a brain. A casual user
>can't touch the important files.

That it is unix is not relevant. Clueless users don't know
that they should not be piddling around there.

>>
>>>If I delete a bunch of resources from the Macintosh System file, I
>>>will have to replace it.  Is that a weakness in Macintosh?  no.
>>
>>Nope. Because it is not possible for a casual use to do this;
>>it requires extra software. Software Joe Novice User will not
>>have; software that screams "You are about to die!" whenever
>>you try to touch the System file anyway, just in case some
>>poor fool novice DID get his hands on it.
>
>It is not possible for a casual user to touch the NeXT system files.
>Anybody can open ResEdit and have a field day.

Anyone NeXT owner can log in as root. Not any Mac user knows how
to procure a copy of ResEdit.

And at least when they use ResEdit it warns them of impending doom.
(not that that helps much, but its something)

 The point is, these
>'experts' logged in as root, and did something wrong. Then they blamed
>NeXT for it. After all, it was a scientific survey.

They rightly blamed NeXT for making a system that could not
recover from such a slight bit o damage.

>>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.
>
>So is it reasonable for them to blame the OS for their own stupidity?

It is reasonably to blame the OS for not helping them with
their *IGNORANCE* (not quite the same thing).

>>Im not even talking about having the computer
>>say "c'mon you dont REALLY want to do that now do you";
>>I mean having the computer recover from this simple sort of thing.
>
>If some knowledgable user reformats the hard drive in his Mac, how's
>the machine going to recover?

It wont. A flaw, but I see no solution. Do you?

But this is not simple to recover from.

> Who knows what these guys did? Why didn't
>they just boot off a floppy? Why didn't they RTFM?

This is not relevant. They should not have had to.

>Anybody can claim that changing the login tiff screwed up the machine
>and that they had to reinstall the OS, but is it true?

Doesn't really matter.

> Maybe as they see
>it. I change my login tiff fairly frequently. No problem. I screwed up
>my system once. I read the manual, booted from a floppy, and corrected my
>mistake. No problem. There's no replacement for common sense.

In this case there is- a system that can recover from the problem.
Possibly on-screen information telling them about the problem
and what they can do to fix it?

>>>  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!")
>
>If fault is totally irrelevant, the user shouldn't be blaming the OS.

You can blame who you want (customer is always right); but the OS
should help anyway.

>I have a roommate with an SE/30. He's got a RasterOps 24 bit color board
>in there. Some time ago, he was without an external monitor, but the 
>computer assumed it was there. He kept losing his cursor in the corner.
>One day he had a problem. The solution was clearly marked : zap the
>PRAM. No big deal. He did it. Problem gone. New problem : the main 
>monitor defaulted to the non-existent one. Suddenly, he had nothing on his
>screen. At the time, he didn't know what the problem was. He reinstalled
>the software. No help. Finally, he figured out the problem. He certainly
>didn't blame the Mac OS for allowing him to do such a thing.

Well, he SHOULD HAVE. This is a serious bug we are talking about here!

>The moral? The problem isn't always what you think it is, nor is the
>solution. How about, no computer can protect you from your own folly.

Yes it CAN. Sometimes. When it can it should. I have shown you MANY TIMES
how IN THIS CASE (with the login tiff) the system ->CAN<-.

---
			- 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.