First of all, I must say that it is with genuine gratitude that I read your responses!
Moving on... On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM James Huddle <james.r.hud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What I am trying to do (thank you Troy Martin), is work through >> the standard answers and missteps toward a more secure OS, >> starting with OpenBSD and a flashlight. It is my humble opinion >> that the optimal number of users for (say) a laptop is one. >> And the optimal number for a server is zero. I doubt many would >> agree with that assessment, but I'm looking for solutions, regardless. >I'm going to try to phrase this politely, but I might trigger other >people to say some rude things (not sure if they'll be aimed at >myself, or not). Anyways... I have two hypothetical questions you >should think about: >1) Why do you doubt that many would agree with that assessment? Probably the same reason that you would say "...I might trigger other people to say some rude things..." Often I feel that by merely stating my opinion, here, I have opened the door to the proverbial darkroom. Sorry! That, and a multi-user system has been the heart and cornerstone of Unix & co. for MILLENNIA. That's fine. But my laptop is not a 1985 VAX. I just think that pushing the idea forward of using the most popular multiuser OS in history - in single-user mode - might meet with a little friction. >2) Also, what is a "user"? Good question. I am a user. Someone who has hacked into my multi-user system as a different user is a user. And apparently, so is the cups daemon? >If by "user" you mean "person", that leads to some lines of discussion. >If by "user" you mean an integer value which appears under the label >"user_id" (or some variant, such as perhaps "uid") in a C structure, >that leads to other lines of discussion. >If by "user" you mean a line in the /etc/passwd file which identifies >a directory, that leads to yet other lines of discussion. Although I have some understanding of the three discussions, I feel that the "interchangeable parts" philosophy, which works great for firearms technology, has created more problems than we should be willing to accept in 21st century computing. A user is *usually* a human, and might better be defined as an *owner*. Not to be confused with the thousands of visitors to a web site. In short, If I am sitting at my laptop, no other humans should be using my laptop at that time, without an arm-twisting amount of authentication and my conscious awareness of said "other person". Having a bunch of background processes doing human-user things blurs that equation, unfavorably, IMO. ... >From skimming this thread, I don't think you mean any of those. But if >no one knows what you mean, it doesn't really matter whether they >agree or disagree with you. Hope that helps. Weather's calling for rain. Fingers crossed. -Jim On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:47 PM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:05 PM James Huddle <james.r.hud...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > What I am trying to do (thank you Troy Martin), is work through > > the standard answers and missteps toward a more secure OS, > > starting with OpenBSD and a flashlight. It is my humble opinion > > that the optimal number of users for (say) a laptop is one. > > And the optimal number for a server is zero. I doubt many would > > agree with that assessment, but I'm looking for solutions, regardless. > > I'm going to try to phrase this politely, but I might trigger other > people to say some rude things (not sure if they'll be aimed at > myself, or not). Anyways... I have two hypothetical questions you > should think about: > > 1) Why do you doubt that many would agree with that assessment? > > 2) Also, what is a "user"? > > If by "user" you mean "person", that leads to some lines of discussion. > > If by "user" you mean an integer value which appears under the label > "user_id" (or some variant, such as perhaps "uid") in a C structure, > that leads to other lines of discussion. > > If by "user" you mean a line in the /etc/passwd file which identifies > a directory, that leads to yet other lines of discussion. > > ... > > From skimming this thread, I don't think you mean any of those. But if > no one knows what you mean, it doesn't really matter whether they > agree or disagree with you. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul >
