Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner:(
dman84 wrote: > its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone > has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Peter Lairo wrote: > I think it is > being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the > bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( Could you explain why it is? I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything. And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be configured to require a password to logon. -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: > Could you explain why it is? I (and *many* others) already have exhautively and repeatedly explained why a PW makes sense for many users. Go see the relevant posts here and bugs if you are truly interested in seeing why your oppinion is erroneous, one-sided, and deliberately misleading. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in >> charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows >> users. :( > > > Could you explain why it is? > > I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody > really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the > others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't > change anything. > > And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be > configured to require a password to logon. > You guys all spew the same line of arrogant fodder. The *users* have spoken here. Just because you *personally* have no use for this, it's totally worthless? Go ahead and put another nail in Mozilla's coffin. -- sid
Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
And it came to pass that Sid Vicious wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the
>>> Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it
>>> is important to windows users. :(
>>
>>
>> Could you explain why it is?
>>
>> I see it this way: The PW protection is of course
>> worthless. Anybody really wanting to access your profile
>> data can still do so. And the others don't care about your
>> profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't change anything.
>>
>> And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can
>> also be configured to require a password to logon.
>>
>
> You guys all spew the same line of arrogant fodder. The
> *users* have spoken here. Just because you *personally*
> have no use for this, it's totally worthless? Go ahead and
> put another nail in Mozilla's coffin.
>
>
They continually fail to get the point; it's not about security.
People don't want a password for security; they simply want the
user to know which profile they've selected.
Mozilla/N6's drop down menu is simply inadequate for the home
user. It's too easy to simply click and go into someone else's
profile, and wonder what the heck happened to all your
bookmarks, and why is it set back to THIS skin?
Few, if any, home Windows users set up different windows
profiles. It's not a consideration, as most of the programs
they use don't require seperate user settings. The average home
user doesn't need a seperate Word profile, or a different
Calender Creator profile. Most home users are not even aware
that they CAN or SHOULD set up different Windows users.
And the programs that they DO need different user profiles for
have them built in: Communicator, AOL, Eudora, Quicken, Pegasus;
all have made provisions within the program itself to help users
access the data they need without accessing the data they don't.
Mozilla/Netscape 6 will NEVER gain widespread acceptance if it
does not provide the functions that users have come to expect;
and that's how it is.
So quit arguing and make it work all ready.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Remember, we have to get the baby out of the oven today.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Password protected profiles <-- patch ready, but ignored by owner :(
Christian Biesinger wrote: > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in >> charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows >> users. :( > > > Could you explain why it is? > > I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody > really wanting to access your profile data can still do so. And the > others don't care about your profile anyway, so PW protection doesn't > change anything. > > And I don't see why this is windows specific... Windows can also be > configured to require a password to logon. > I know a couple that the wife wants a feature like this to lock out her husband from her email & browser stuff even on a windows multi-user platform like WME. -dman84
