> "The Plan 9 way of thinking (wrt the security of physical terminal access) > completely undermines, or somehow fails to recognize, the very real fact > that there is always a cost/risk effort/reward equation at play."
Sure, but you used this against Plan 9 when you should have used it as a stimulus for further investigation. The Plan 9 developers added factotum and the secstore and re-evaluated security out of necessity. They highlighted what was already known, namely that physical security is essential for real protection and based their efforts on this discovery. Merely acting on this principle was a break with tradition for which they should be thanked, specially as they did not take away the option to re-introduce the ability to pull the wool over the system administrator's eyes. You may do this if you want, I'd be curious to see what kind of following you will find in this audience. ++L PS: I think that illusion has some value in security, but the risk it creates is much greater. Like all security, what you see is more important than what you have to dig to discover (a closed door is a greater deterrent than an open one, even when it is unlocked). PPS: The tone of your second reply suggests that my little barb had much greater effect than you admitted. Don't take it to heart, this is a mailing list where the occasional insult becomes irresistible :-)
