"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
>
> >It is an optimal solution if you define optimal to be the best possible cost
> >versus benefit. Most users use win9x which has virtually NO "Permission
> >management". Anyhow, the password would be far from not doing "anything". 99%
> >of unintentional or novice snooping is highly significant.
>
> Hmm. Its not best possible cost because it fixes the wrong
> problem. Providing a non-functional passwording system on a more secure
> operating system would simply irritate the users of those systems.
Hmm. I do see your point, but on the other hand, we have *already*
irritated such people more than enough by providing the non-functional
"profile" system in the first place on systems (*nix and to a lesser
extent Win2k) that already have much more sophisticated ways to deal
with multiple users. In that situation, support for multiple mail
accounts removed the only possible reason anyone might have wanted
profiles on *nix... we have them anyway. And yes, as a user of such a
system, I *do* find it irritating (although, I have to admit, Moz does a
good job of making the unnecessary profiles functionality invisible and
unobtrusive). Clearly, not irritating users of "real" operating systems
wasn't a high design priority :)
This feature can be implemented with a *reduction* in irritation to
everyone, by turning profiles off altogether for sufficiently advanced
OSs.
> There are all sorts of mechanisms that allow that on both secure and non
> secure operating systems. A screen saver with a password is only
> one. Leaving a machine on without some kind of control would just avoid
> any security anyway. It would take a lot longer to open a browser and
> enter a password for the profile than it would to enter a password on a
> screen saver or keyboard lock.
Up until recently, I lived in a home with children and a single family
computer. I also know several people who do so. In all these situations
that I know of, I am the only person who would have the first clue where
to look for profile data if I wanted to break this "security". The
others range from "uh, what's a file?" to fully capable of figuring out
and using most applications, and even doing simple HTML authoring.
For the large proportion of households that don't contain an advanced
computer user or script kiddie (I don't consider script kiddies advanced
:) ) the mere existence of a password would be more than enough
protection. We're talking about the "sister doesn't want annoying
younger brother reading her email to her girlfriends about boys" kind of
security. The sort of security provided by those journals that come with
locks that I could pull apart with my bare hands if I really wanted to.
The sort of security that is *all most home users really need*.
Advanced users, of course, know that this security is inadequate for
them. But advanced users also know how to get better security, so it
doesn't *matter*.
Stuart.
