[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SSH revised

From: Christian Helmuth
Subject: Re: SSH revised
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:27:08 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126


On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 07:30:38PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> requirements.  In the system I want to build, that should not be the
> case.


> > I understand this as: You don't care about anything somebody wants or
> > doesn't want including "user freedom", correct?
> Incorrect.  But as long as we are having this discussion at the level
> of "I want, you want", without looking into why somebody would want
> it, we won't make any technical contribution.

There are rumours, you'll be at EuroSys in Leuven? If that's true, I'd
like to talk with you f2f. I've the feeling that could fix the "I want,
you want" level. My apologies for bringing this into the discussion.

> > Personally, I do not like the new course this discussion takes, because it
> > becomes too political...
> WordNet suggests as one meaning of political:
>      2: of or relating to your views about social relationships
>          involving authority or power; "political opinions"
> Can we built a system that makes it easy for users to keep their
> accounts safe and protected (optionally with the administrators help),
> and preserves maximum system integrity, while still giving any
> particular user complete flexibility over the authentication mechanism
> they want to use, including empty passwords?  I think so.  Let's
> assume we can build such a system, do you still have an objection?  If
> yes, what would it be?

No objections so far.

Christian Helmuth

TU Dresden, Dept. of CS
Operating Systems Group

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]