I was going to give it a rest. Really. But I couldn't overcome my bad
habits. They outnumber me ten to one ;-)
You're right; it isn't. Is that good or bad? What about in an office
environment? Same answer there?
Plan 9's aptitude for becoming easily distributed--that is, becoming
decentralized--gives rise to a centralized system when it comes to
security, because safekeeping of one auth server is much easier than
keeping track of numerous authentications/authorization databases spread
across the network.
It's good. For a _large_ organization, it's good. For the same reasons
time-sharing systems were good for university campuses. Centralization
lowers overhead--in costs, time, security, and general maintenance hassles.
Problem is, sometimes the center and the periphery are the _same_, e.g. in
home computing. And for the same reasons a time-sharing system would be bad
for home computing, an innately distributed system is also bad for it.
Needless to say, home computing doesn't mean casual or insignificant
computing. The term only denotes the individual--to contrast with
organizational--quality of the computation involved.
Decentralization in small scale either overburdens the user with complexity
or leaves them at the mercy of a _centralized_ application provider; in
safekeeping of credentials, for example. That's Microsoft's dream world of
"software as a service." Strangely, Plan 9--if it ever gets to enjoy a
large user base--demonstrates the horrors of that dream.
Way, way out of scope. Kinda like a fusion-powered terminal.
Not like that. Biometrics is becoming dirt cheap these days.
...or incipient schizophrenia.
Huh?
Would that I could force you into not using double-quotes for emphasis!
I used to use them for emphasis. Then I tried _underscores_ and reserved
double quotes for "sarcasm" and "invented/unfamiliar terms."
--On Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:15 PM -0700 Geoffrey Avila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not (currently) a Plan 9 user, but I gotta chime in:
It seems the security ascribed to disposable machines comes from that
"user data" is stored on a different, presumably safer, machine in, for
example, some sort of data warehouse at a data center. This isn't a new
idea--actually, it's _very_ old--and it's not what happens in home (or
personal) computing.
You're right; it isn't. Is that good or bad? What about in an office
environment? Same answer there?
Plan 9 respects that. Not trusting the hostowner is a waste of effort.
Not with reliable biometric authentication, but that's out of scope here.
Way, way out of scope. Kinda like a fusion-powered terminal.
Now, your home computer may be a true single user machine but you store
_some_ authentication information on it anyway; those of yours, namely.
Such machine is in that respect as vulnerable as a UNIX machine. It has
to be _physically_ guarded. It's no more a "disposable" machine.
This is the argument I had for using Sunrays in public places at work.
Single user, and if they were ganked from the lobby one night, the
theives would only have a middling LCD monitor instead of a windows
system with cached credentials.
This is classic. Complication is a sign of maturation.
...or incipient schizophrenia.
by not maturing, by avoiding diversification. Before you get angry I
must say that's my "personal" opinion. Nothing I'm going to "force"
unto you. Nothing I _can_ force unto you.
Would that I could force you into not using double-quotes for emphasis!
-GBA
