If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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 |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Mac users - be aware
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple-Verizon's latest ingratiating, self-aware, pandering iPhone ad | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 4 | May 14th 14 01:29 AM |
Are you aware about your health?? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | May 21st 07 06:53 PM |
ICM-aware image viewer? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 7 | April 20th 06 07:59 AM |
ACDSee 7 ICC Aware? | Nathan Gutman | Digital Photography | 5 | January 6th 06 05:59 PM |
viewer/album software that is version aware and can tag photos? | peter | Digital Photography | 6 | August 12th 04 09:50 PM |