Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> > Let's keep thing simple when possible. All most people need is a way to keep
> > nosy teenage sisters from reading their brother's email and visa-versa. The VAST
> > majority of PC users don't even know what a directory tree is. We've long passed
> > the era when only computer geeks used computers.
>
> I think, many of those "brothers" are able to get beyond such a simple
> "security" protection.
You're wrong. You obviously have little contact with "regular" people. They are almost
completely clueless about computers ("directory, what is that").
> > Mitchell Stoltz wrote:
> >
> >> I'm inclined to agree with Ian. We try to steer clear of features which
> >> provide a false sense of security.
> >
> I agree with Mitch. Don't spent time on such a "lookalike security". We
> are not Microsoft, which made a joke out of itself by implementing such
> a feature for MS Word.
>
> If this is so important to you, get a decent OS with users at the OS
> level, e.g. Windows 2000. If you want to protect your profile, chances
> are that you want to protect your other files as well.
the only other files i need to protect are my lotus organizer file and a few
ordperfect documents - both have password protection on a per file basis! BTW, win2k
is too expensive for such a minor issue that can easily be implemented by mozilla and
those that don't want it don't have to use it. Of course, i don't expect you to
understand because you are trying to protect the ingnorant (thankfully you are there
to save them). And oh what a fool microsoft (i don't like them) has made of
themselves, being the market leader and dominating the breowser market - and don't
give me that OS bundling argument, i can't hear it anymore. You don't see everyone
using wordpad, do you. If IE or outlook sucked (like wordpad) people would be using
netscape more.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
