Hi Bertrand This is not about shouting louder but about a concise simile.
Things have been discussed quite extensively in the orginal thread [1] on enabling security. To elaborate the smoke detector comparison: The motivation for enabling security by default (activate the smoke detector) was that developer see, when their code doesn't work reasonably in a secure environment such as in an application server (cause of smoke). The emails we had on the mailing list it show that people are indeed improving their code (tackling the cause of smoke) because they see the security issues. I don't remember any mail of a user complaining that they had to enter a password for a privileged action (this would be: smoke in the hotel room). But to come back to the meta-layer, I don't think that I was shouting but your mail might be seen as FUD. You're taking about your impression without bringing any evidence supporting your claim. The sentence about being "back to Stanbol as it worked before" suggest that Stanbol is no longer working, for this I'd prefer to have issues in Jira rather than this. The last sentence is a red herring as the point is that module developer make their modules have sound security constraints and thus work anywhere - not that people with particular security needs can see how Stanbol fails. Cheers, Reto On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This is like disabling the smoke detector, rather than tackling the > cause > > of the smoke... > > I would appreciate if we can avoid the "whoever shouts louder wins" > tactics here. > > -Bertrand > 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stanbol-dev/201211.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXNFcvNroS=r40ct37d2h+90zvt8x_p8x_gj6mde7+...@mail.gmail.com%3E
