Mac users - be aware

| And to be clear I am using the term root as it would traditionally
| be used

| There is no "misuse" or "traditional" use.
|

There is. That's the point here. Root has
traditionally been the user on Unix/Linux who
has no restrictions. It's that simple.

There's a general trend toward locking down
devices for both security and control, as tech
companies make more money from sales and
services. It doesn't sound so good to say that
you no longer have control over your own
property, so both Apple and Microsoft are
leaving the terms in place while they change
the meaning. It wouldn't go over well to say,
"root will henceforth be known as lackey", or
"Administrator will henceforth be lackey", so
they redefine root and Administrator. And it
works! It fooled you, Alan and nospam. When
sid finally detailed the exact restrictions Alan
finally said, "Yes, of course it's restricted.
You're living in 1990."
He still couldn't bring himself to acknowledge
one simple point: Macs are locked down and
that's not true of all other computers.

That's all that sid is saying. Maybe you think
it should be locked down. That's up to you. Not
everyone feels the same way.

Sandman wrote:

In article , sid wrote:

nospam:
no they don't.

Oh yes they do! Is this another of your complete brain malfunctions?

Tell me how these two sentences mean the same thing

"nobody is restricting access to the entire computer."

I.e. the entire system is not restricted, users still have access to the
vast majority of the system, the entire system is not restricted.

It's a fun example of what I think is called a "dangling modifier".

"certain key system files are restricted from being altered and for
very good reasons."

Certain things are restricted, thus the entire system isn't restricted.
Dangle, dangle

So, what you're saying is you are right as long as you apply some obscure
term to it and then interpret it in a deliberately dishonest way. Fair
enough.

sid:
What *are* you on about you idiot. The whole point of your
blathering is that things outside the norm won't be allowed so
as to protect everybody from themselves. Are you changing your
mind now?

nospam:
i haven't changed my mind and that's not what i said.

You're right, Jonas said it.

You're lying again.

I haven't lied before so it is not possible for me to have lied again.



So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

I dunno, ask the NSA.

--
sid

Mayayana wrote:

| And to be clear I am using the term root as it would traditionally
| be used

| There is no "misuse" or "traditional" use.
|

There is. That's the point here. Root has
traditionally been the user on Unix/Linux who
has no restrictions. It's that simple.

There's a general trend toward locking down
devices for both security and control, as tech
companies make more money from sales and
services. It doesn't sound so good to say that
you no longer have control over your own
property, so both Apple and Microsoft are
leaving the terms in place while they change
the meaning. It wouldn't go over well to say,
"root will henceforth be known as lackey", or
"Administrator will henceforth be lackey", so
they redefine root and Administrator. And it
works! It fooled you, Alan and nospam. When
sid finally detailed the exact restrictions Alan
finally said, "Yes, of course it's restricted.
You're living in 1990."
He still couldn't bring himself to acknowledge
one simple point: Macs are locked down and
that's not true of all other computers.

That's all that sid is saying. Maybe you think
it should be locked down. That's up to you. Not
everyone feels the same way.

Ah, so, it's not just me then.

--
sid

android wrote:


Well..? It seems that Apple is going the SELinux way by defacto
replace Roots superuser privileges with those of an
administrator... No, I don't like it either!
Now: Guess who the original sponsor for SEL was?
;-p

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

Interesting, I didn't know that.

--
sid

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
I.e. the entire system is not restricted, users still have access
to the vast majority of the system, the entire system is not
restricted.

It's a fun example of what I think is called a "dangling
modifier".

sid:
"certain key system files are restricted from being altered and
for very good reasons."

Sandman:
Certain things are restricted, thus the entire system isn't
restricted. Dangle, dangle

So, what you're saying is you are right as long as you apply some
obscure term to it and then interpret it in a deliberately
dishonest way.

Nope.

sid:
What *are* you on about you idiot. The whole point of
your blathering is that things outside the norm won't be
allowed so as to protect everybody from themselves. Are you
changing your mind now?

nospam:
i haven't changed my mind and that's not what i said.

sid:
You're right, Jonas said it.

Sandman:
You're lying again.

I haven't lied before so it is not possible for me to have lied
again.

And again.

Sandman:
So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

I dunno

If you don't know, why did you make comments about whether or not you'd want it?

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:


And again.

I don't lie. If I've made a mistake point it out, don't just act like a
****.

Sandman:
So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

I dunno

If you don't know, why did you make comments about whether or not you'd
want it?

Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea? On your say
so? nospams? Apples? I should coco.

--
sid

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
And again.

I don't lie. If I've made a mistake point it out, don't just act
like a ****.

You lost the benefit of a doubt long ago, Sid.

Sandman:
So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

sid:
I dunno

Sandman:
If you don't know, why did you make comments about whether or not
you'd want it?

Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea?

Why would you claim you don't want it if you don't know whether it's a good or
bad idea?

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
And again.

I don't lie. If I've made a mistake point it out, don't just act
like a ****.

You lost the benefit of a doubt long ago, Sid.

So, twinkle it is.

Sandman:
So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

sid:
I dunno

Sandman:
If you don't know, why did you make comments about whether or not
you'd want it?

Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea?

Why would you claim you don't want it if you don't know whether it's a
good or bad idea?

Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea.

--
sid

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
And again.

sid:
I don't lie. If I've made a mistake point it out, don't just act
like a ****.

Sandman:
You lost the benefit of a doubt long ago, Sid.

So, twinkle it is.

Act like an adult if you want to be treated like one.

Sandman:
So is it a good idea or a bad idea?

sid:
I dunno

Sandman:
If you don't know, why did you make comments about
whether or not you'd want it?

sid:
Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea?

Sandman:
Why would you claim you don't want it if you don't know whether
it's a good or bad idea?

Why would I want it if I don't know if it's a good or bad idea.

Why would you specifically claim you don't want it if you don't know if it's a
good or bad idea?

--
Sandman

PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/5/2015 12:05 PM, android wrote:
PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/5/2015 7:06 AM, AnthonyL wrote:

snip


It strikes me as being bad form to let users have physical access to
their computers and even worse form to allow them permissions to
install anything on them. Bring back the mainframe I say.


Many software publishers would like to see that happen. Except, what you
call mainframe, they call the cloud.

Bring back dumb terminals.

--
PeterN

iPads?


There is a distinction between terminals, and users. ;-p

--
PeterN

There's a joke in that... Whatever, webservices and terminals are
basically the thing.
--
teleportation kills


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/