Alan Burlison wrote:
> Agreed, there's a balance to be struck between security and making > people feeling loved. However I have a sneaking suspicion that the same > people who are so vocal now would be equally as vocal if the site was > overwhelmed with forum spam, or there was large-scale defacement of site > content. > And your point is? I mean, of course. Are you asserting that this change is to avoid forum spam and site defacement? I thought you said it was to protect source code? > I've said that expecting people to have to log in once a day is > not unreasonable, and I've seen no firm evidence to the contrary. What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? Do you need medical records showing muscle damage from logging in so many times in a week? You are stating an opinion about what is reasonable, others have disagreed. You are unconvinced and apparently plan to go ahead with the change despite the opposition. Others have then gotten miffed that you are ignoring their opinions and you have gotten miffed that they are miffed at you. Great progress there. Turn this around. Several people have stated that a longer session timeout is not unreasonable and you have not offered firm evidence to the contrary. -- blu There are two rules in life: Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
