"Simon P. Lucy" wrote:
> At 09:58 19/12/2000 +0100, Peter Lairo wrote:
> >OK, most people use Win9x. If one were to set up multiple user profiles in
> >Win9x, would:
> >
> >a) Mozilla install its user files to that users directory?
>
> It should do, if it doesn't that's a bug.
>
> >b) would that directory be in any way protected from view by persons
> >logging in under another Win9x profile?
>
> Check
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/training/options/FREE/VBSOL/Topics/winvbvc00198.htm
> this says that My Documents should be used to store User created data. As
> its a virtual path set up at the time of login then it is certainly true
> that only the logged in user would see their own data in My
> Documents. However, I'm not aware of anything in 9x or Me that implements
> permissions to lock out other profiles from being physically searched.
>
> This is slightly better than just using a password in Mozilla, but suffers
> the same drawback.
My point EXACTLY (the SAME drawback). Actually Mozilla is worse, because in Win9x
the user doesn't "see" the other's My Documents folder, whereas in Mozilla, you see
the list of other users' profiles EVERY time you load Mozilla (Profile Manager)
> >If either answer is NO, then Mozilla should consider implementing a profile
> >password to add even a minor layer of security to ones mail privacy, since
> >if Win9x doesn't encrypt or hide users' info from others, most people wouldn't
> >bother to use it.
> >
> >If either answer is NO, then why are so many people using Win9x.?
> >According to your >logic, this would "damage the reputation of the product
> (Win9x) as a whole and call into question the integrity in other areas"? Then
> why are so many people using Win9x? Despite why you or I may think about M$ and
> it's flawed OS, this is the
> >reality. Obviously, people are making their usage habits (Win9x & IE) based
> >primarily on convenience and not technically optimized criteria (or most
> >people would be using Win NT or Linux for security, but they mostly use Win9x -
>
> >makes one think, doesn't it). Mozilla must think very hard when deciding
> between
> >what users want and what is technically optimal. Mozilla must make this
> important
> >compromise.
>
> I'd imagine that many people given the choice would want a more secure
> operating system than 9x or Me, most people don't get the choice
> though. Their operating system is bundled with their hardware, and if not
> the home user is generally told that 9x is their ideal operating system and
> that Win 2K etc is a corporate user's operating system. That this is now
> generally false is a pity but there's not a lot can be done about that
> until MS produce their unified OS, and even then they will have a smaller
> Home User O/S still dependant on DOS, because their marketeers believe
> anything else would be too difficult.
Don't waver now. The fact remains that most people use Win9x! I buy my own
components and assemble them. I still choose Win9x because it is A) much cheaper
than WinNT, B) compatible with more software, C) easier to use/configure, D)
supports games, etc etc
I'm sure most people make a conscious choice to use Win9x for those or similar
reasons. This is the reality. Mozilla should accept it (and the resulting
consequences) and implement password protected profiles.
> This isn't to inculcate any OS platform war, I really couldn't care less
> what platform is used.
I do care, but this isn't the issue here.
> Simon
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
