Guest
chrisv writes:
Where is the alleged irony, chrisv?
S
Sten Solberg
Guest
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:50:46 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
*technically* correct. But while you are technically correct in the context and
to the initiated, newbies could get the impression that OS/2 is lacking
something.
claim only compounds your misleading statement about "local file system
security".
OS/2 is lacking functionality that would be redundant for a single user OS. In
other words, you are knocking OS/2 for not being something else, i.e. a
different OS. You are being unreasonable.
security, or it is lacking "local file system security". If OS/2 had been
designed to be a multi-user OS but didn't come with local file system security,
then it would be reasonable to say it was 'lacking' local file system security.
Clear now?
compound the misleading first claim. Since your first claim was sufficient
basis for my objection, I snipped the second.
same characterization first; I only noticed it when you used it.
isn't exactly news
But as you now know, I object to your use of 'lack(-ing)' without proper
qualifications, because some readers might erroneously conclude that OS/2 is
actually lacking something.
misunderstanding "the issues", how do you explain that OS/2 can lack something
it was not designed to have?
clarification about OS/2 being a single user system came _after my first
posting.
know... I have said nothing about "in general". I have said that your
unqualified phrasing could be taken by _some to mean that OS/2 out of the box is
lacking something. Something which it, per definition, cannot be lacking.
whole truth, ...". Of course, when you did state the missing fact, your claim
became illogical.
carries negative connotations the way you used it, i.e. without explicit
qualification(s) - especially for newbie readers.
criticism I have submitted this time around.
unreasonable (read: idiotic) to criticise, say, a book for not telling a
different story. I find it equally unreasonable to knock OS/2 for not being a
multi-user OS, when it is designed to be a single user OS. The single user OS
is the story we are dealing with in this book.
something... How good it is, is a different discussion, as I mention below.
system security, as technically defined, becomes redundant, as it were, on a
single user system.
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
So much for my trying to be generous, since I had already agreed that you were"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-45mQ8FHG7TZW@localhost>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)
When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.
Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.
Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.
So it would seem
"So it is", is what you mean, Sten.
*technically* correct. But while you are technically correct in the context and
to the initiated, newbies could get the impression that OS/2 is lacking
something.
Only to the initiated. A single user OS cannot 'lack' multi-user access. Your
claim only compounds your misleading statement about "local file system
security".
Since I accept your definition, where is the game? You, OTOH, are claiming that
OS/2 is lacking functionality that would be redundant for a single user OS. In
other words, you are knocking OS/2 for not being something else, i.e. a
different OS. You are being unreasonable.
You can't have it both ways, Curtis. OS/2 is either a single user OS with local
security, or it is lacking "local file system security". If OS/2 had been
designed to be a multi-user OS but didn't come with local file system security,
then it would be reasonable to say it was 'lacking' local file system security.
Clear now?
For the uninitiated, as well as logically, your qualification works only to
compound the misleading first claim. Since your first claim was sufficient
basis for my objection, I snipped the second.
Granted. But I object to your use of 'lacking'. I apologize if MMI used the
same characterization first; I only noticed it when you used it.
I disagree. OS/2, as a single user system, cannot *lack* either.
That OS/2 supports various kinds of 3rd party solutions, even out of the box,
isn't exactly news
But as you now know, I object to your use of 'lack(-ing)' without proper
qualifications, because some readers might erroneously conclude that OS/2 is
actually lacking something.
Certainly.Well, we now know - after a
prodding from me - that OS/2 is a single user system out of the box and is
therefore not lacking specific local file system security any more than a fish
lacks a bicycle.
You are giving yourself too much credit, which is ironic, considering
that you are the only one on record as having a problem with what I
stated, and why. Go back and look at the context of the discussion
between Martin (MMI) and myself:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] It allows me now to say that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a
MMI] local security support (not HPFS386 related), because there is
MMI] a 3rd party product that does that. How do you like it?
MMI] Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
MMI] directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
MMI]
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
The context of that part of the discussion _was_ _local_ _file_
_system_ _security_ _AS_ _I_ _SUBSEQUENTLY_ _DEFINED_ _IT_ FOR_ _YOU_
!!
I read MMI to be ironic more than boastful, and if you think I am
misunderstanding "the issues", how do you explain that OS/2 can lack something
it was not designed to have?
Not at all - I am trying to have a balanced, i.e. critical, view of OS/2.
Well, but only to the initiated, which was my (only) criticism. The
clarification about OS/2 being a single user system came _after my first
posting.
If you think I am stupid, wait till I introduce you to some computer users I
know... I have said nothing about "in general". I have said that your
unqualified phrasing could be taken by _some to mean that OS/2 out of the box is
lacking something. Something which it, per definition, cannot be lacking.
I'd suggest you quit saying that and listen to constructive criticism instead.
Facts can be misleading when one or more facts are being left out, cf. "..., the
whole truth, ...". Of course, when you did state the missing fact, your claim
became illogical.
I am addressing your misplaced use of 'lack(-ing)', which is both illogical and
carries negative connotations the way you used it, i.e. without explicit
qualification(s) - especially for newbie readers.
I also think it would be fair and reasonable of you to just accept the mild
criticism I have submitted this time around.
This is the crux of the matter, as they say: it is generally considered
unreasonable (read: idiotic) to criticise, say, a book for not telling a
different story. I find it equally unreasonable to knock OS/2 for not being a
multi-user OS, when it is designed to be a single user OS. The single user OS
is the story we are dealing with in this book.
By "effectively" I mean something like 'functionally' or 'in reality' or
something... How good it is, is a different discussion, as I mention below.
Of course it isn't, but _IF_ it effectively secures the local system, local file
system security, as technically defined, becomes redundant, as it were, on a
single user system.
--How well or efficiently OS/2 does this out of the
box is another discussion...
Agreed.
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
J
JEDIDIAH
Guest
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2004-06-29, Sten Solberg <stens@powertech.no> wrote:
end user may choose not to enable their full destructive potential 24/7.
Also, any multi-tasking system is likely to be running a variety of jobs
each with their own requirements. An end user may prefer to not allow those
tasks the ability to interfere with each other.
Local filesystem security is merely an extension of memory protection and
pre-emptive multitasking in this regard. There was a time when both of
these features were considered useful for time-sharing systems only.
[deletia]
...and it seems that you have things backwards. OS/2 is being labeled
single user due to a lack of features.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
On 2004-06-29, Sten Solberg <stens@powertech.no> wrote:
Not at all. Single user access does not eliminate the possibility that the
end user may choose not to enable their full destructive potential 24/7.
Also, any multi-tasking system is likely to be running a variety of jobs
each with their own requirements. An end user may prefer to not allow those
tasks the ability to interfere with each other.
Local filesystem security is merely an extension of memory protection and
pre-emptive multitasking in this regard. There was a time when both of
these features were considered useful for time-sharing systems only.
[deletia]
...and it seems that you have things backwards. OS/2 is being labeled
single user due to a lack of features.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
C
chrisv
Guest
tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
t h o l e n
Guest
chrisv wrote:
Fuckwit troll.
*plonk*
Fuckwit troll.
M
Menno
Guest
Hello World,
cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote in message news:<163715e7.0406280525.6a1656f9@posting.google.com>...
dangers inherent in allowing third parties access to their systems,
through the 'net or otherwise.
However, on your Windows system, this is also dangerous. If the files
that you yourself can access are all that the worm needs, then no
number of different user accounts will save you.
Add to this the fact that many vulnerabilities have been found in
current Windows software. Vulnerabilities that allow the attacker to
run code on the system with all the privileges of the
currently-logged-in user. Without the consent of said user. That is
the condition that allows viruses and worms to propagate.
My (admittedly casual) research into OS/2 vulnerabilities proved
inconclusive. I could not find a single OS/2 vulnerability at
Semantic. How nice of Semantic to list OS/2 so often under the
"Systems not affected" section... Actually, I *could* find an exploit
that does affect OS/2 at CERT: Beter upgrade from Netscape 2.02, guys!
So if you ask me to choose between a system that has no known security
vulnerabilities anymore[1] and one that does have a steady supply of
them, but only allows the attacker to mess up *part* of my files[2], I
think I'll still stick with the former.
It is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by the fact
that Windows does have some security measures. People seem not to
realise the amount of damage they can do with the privileges they have
on their systems, even without elevated privileges such as an admin
account.
Cheers/2,
Menno
[1] Feel free to educate me on the subject, but theoretical
vulnerabilities don't count. URLs to confirmed OS/2 vulnerabilities
only please. That affect OS/2 users *today*.
[2] Can I even call operating system files "My files?"
cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote in message news:<163715e7.0406280525.6a1656f9@posting.google.com>...
I assure you that non-ignorant OS/2 users are well aware of the
dangers inherent in allowing third parties access to their systems,
through the 'net or otherwise.
However, on your Windows system, this is also dangerous. If the files
that you yourself can access are all that the worm needs, then no
number of different user accounts will save you.
Add to this the fact that many vulnerabilities have been found in
current Windows software. Vulnerabilities that allow the attacker to
run code on the system with all the privileges of the
currently-logged-in user. Without the consent of said user. That is
the condition that allows viruses and worms to propagate.
My (admittedly casual) research into OS/2 vulnerabilities proved
inconclusive. I could not find a single OS/2 vulnerability at
Semantic. How nice of Semantic to list OS/2 so often under the
"Systems not affected" section... Actually, I *could* find an exploit
that does affect OS/2 at CERT: Beter upgrade from Netscape 2.02, guys!
So if you ask me to choose between a system that has no known security
vulnerabilities anymore[1] and one that does have a steady supply of
them, but only allows the attacker to mess up *part* of my files[2], I
think I'll still stick with the former.
It is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by the fact
that Windows does have some security measures. People seem not to
realise the amount of damage they can do with the privileges they have
on their systems, even without elevated privileges such as an admin
account.
Cheers/2,
Menno
[1] Feel free to educate me on the subject, but theoretical
vulnerabilities don't count. URLs to confirmed OS/2 vulnerabilities
only please. That affect OS/2 users *today*.
[2] Can I even call operating system files "My files?"
D
Diogenes
Guest
Menno wrote:
<snip the rest unread>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! As if.
<snip the rest unread>
C
Curtis Bass
Guest
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-eeP2IuMdU8Bd@localhost>...
into this at all. You started this argument because you didn't grasp
the issues and context, but you refuse to let it go, latching onto
"the uninitiated" as your excuse to keep fighting.
own haste and misunderstanding. Anyone without an ax to grind should
clearly see that my statements, in their context, are perfectly clear
and valid.
Think about it, Sten. If an operating system lacks multi-user
capability, then what could that possibly mean, other than the OS is a
single-user OS? What other alternatives are there? Zero-user OS?
Quasi-user OS? Semi-user? How about (negative number)-user?
(Irrational number)-user? (Imaginary number)-user?
(For the "uninitiated": An "imaginary" number is a number that, when
squared, produces a real number having a negative value. Squaring a
real number will always produce a real number having a positive value,
with the only exception being zero.)
cannot "lack" 4-wheel drive, using your "arguments". A silent movie
cannot lack sound. A black and white photo cannot lack color.
your efforts to fabricate such.
file system security would be "redundant".
capability.
Why won't you listen?
doesn't), or it requires a 3rd-party add-on (which it does).
Just Plain Wrong, as OS/2 lacks that which it does not have, by
definition, regardless of whether or not it was "designed to have it".
Furthermore, your argument is rendered irrelevant by virtue of the
context of the original discussion; I didn't claim that OS/2 lacked
these things in isolation, I claimed that OS/2 lacked these things
_IN_ _RESPONSE_ _TO_ a claim that OS/2 did indeed have these things,
albeit via 3rd-party support.
Clear now? It would be if you would listen. Frankly, what I see is
someone who wanted to capitalize on an opportunity to pick an old
fight, and when shown to be in error regarding what "file system
security" means, chose to use "the uninitiated" as an excuse to keep
fighting rather than just admitting his error and backing off.
Why can't you grasp the simple fact that if X doesn't have Y, it lacks
Y ???? It doesn't matter a whit whether X "was designed to have" Y or
not. The statement still holds.
As I used it, all "lack" means is "not have", after all. If you are
reading more than that into it, It's Your Problem.
way of knowing how "the uninitiated" perceived the original
discussion. You are simply projecting your own misunderstanding onto
"the uninitiated" in order to justify your continued arguing.
place, Sten. You simply misread and misunderstood (or simply ignored)
the original discussion between MMI and myself. If MMI hadn't claimed
that OS/2 _HAD_ items X and Y in the first place (via 3rd party
add-ons), then there would be _NO_ _REASON_ for me to have clarified
that OS/2 _LACKS_ items X and Y out of the box.
Why can't you grasp that simple fact?
No, the way I see it is that you knew you had no argument against the
second claim, but thought you had an (old) argument against the first,
so you chopped the second and attacked the first in isolation,
completely ignoring the fact that the two _must_ be taken in tandem,
and then (ironically) acted as if I never even made the second
statement.
use of "lack" was correct.
simply contradicting yourself. Otherwise, we can make all kinds of
ridiculous claims. How about this one?
"Windows wasn't originally designed with security
in mind, so Windows _CANNOT_ _LACK_ _SECURITY_ !!"
Or:
"My economy car wasn't designed to have an automatic
transmission or air conditioning, so it _CANNOT_
_LACK_ _EITHER_ _ONE_ !!"
No, your attempts at redefinition are ludicrous, and a single-user OS,
_BY_ _DEFINITION_ lacks multi-user capabilities. Otherwise, if OS/2
cannot "lack" something, then it obviously cannot "have" that
something either, right? If OS/2 cannot "lack" multi-user
capabilities, then it cannot "have" them, even via a 3rd party add-on,
yes?
You cannot have it both ways, Sten.
capabilities, and your objections, while noted, are irrelevant.
issues. Here's one issue: MMI is claiming that OS/2 _has_ that which
"it was not designed to have", so whether or not OS/2 "was designed"
to have that thing is 100% irrelevant, because OS/2 allegedly has it,
regardless of whether it was "designed to have" it or not. And, since
OS/2 allegedly has that which "it was not designed to have", I am well
within my rights to clarify that OS/2 _doesn't_ _have_ (which it the
_EXACT_ _SAME_ _THING_ as "lacks") that thing out of the box.
And frankly, it doesn't matter how you "read MMI". You've obviously
misread me, and it appears that you've misread him as well. It simply
suits your agenda to have read him as "ironic more than boastful",
that's all.
why can't you give "the uninitiated" credit for having enough
intelligence to do so?
does indeed have "local file system security" as _you_ attempted to
define it.
who required such "clarification" was you. Not "the uninitiated".
Not "newbies". Just you.
Indeed, it appears that you are simply using "the uninitiated" as an
excuse to keep up your unwarranted "criticisms".
all"), you _were_ implying that it wasn't "clear at all" _in_
_general_ whether you like it or not.
"lacking" something was made in response to a claim that it "had" that
something in the first place, rendering your "Something which it, per
definition, cannot be lacking" completely irrelevant. Why can't you
listen? When will you learn?
that context that you keep ignoring, you would realize that there is
nothing "misleading" or "illogical" about saying "X lacks Y and Z out
of the box" as a response to "X has Y and Z" when "Y" and "Z" are
provided by a third-party add-on. Indeed, by clarifying that "Y" and
"Z" were not present out of the box, I was seeking to prevent MMI from
being "misleading" himself, accidentally or otherwise.
Also, there was nothing "missing" in my original statement to begin
with, regardless of your selective blindness.
Sten. "Newbies", if they have a smidgen of intelligence, will grasp
the context of the discussion, and will realize that MMI _first_
_claimed_ that OS/2 _could_ _be_ a multi-user OS, and that I was
_just_ _clarifying_ the fact that it wasn't one out of the box.
"mild criticism". On the contrary, I see it as an insult, considering
that I didn't do anything wrong, here, as you have as much as
admitted, and considering how you chopped and snipped my statements
and didn't even grasp what was going on, but charged in and started
levelling criticisms anyway. "Mild" or not, your "criticism" is one
hundred percent unwarranted, and that is the point, here. Again, if
"the uninitiated" misunderstand the discussion, as you obviously did,
it's their problem, just as it's your problem. I have no intention of
taking responsibility for other people's stupidity, including yours.
story via a third-party add-on, then yes, I am well within my rights
to say that it _doesn't_ do so off-the-shelf, and there is nothing
"unreasonable (read: idiotic)" about it. On the contrary, it's you who
is being unreasonable (read: idiotic), by ignoring the _fact_ that
someone did indeed claim that the book could indeed tell a different
story via a third-party add-on.
third-party add-on, then yes, I am well within my rights to say that
it _isn't_ a multi-user OS out-of-the-box, and there is nothing
"unreasonable (read: idiotic)" about it. On the contrary, it's you who
is being unreasonable (read: idiotic), by ignoring the _fact_ that
someone did indeed claim that OS/2 can be a multi-user OS via a
third-party add-on.
And, for the umptheenth time, I am _not_ "knocking" OS/2. I am simply
_clarifying_ MMI's claims. That you ignore me when I tell you this is
insulting, Sten.
-- snip --
Listen, Sten, if you have such a problem with my use of the word
"lacks", then, in your mind, just substitute the phrase "doesn't have"
for the word "lacks" in my statements, and be on your merry way. And
don't worry so much about that which you cannot control, namely, how
"the uninitiated" perceive things, and how I choose to state things.
Curtis
You're starting to get insulting, Sten; "generosity" doesn't enterOn Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:50:46 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-45mQ8FHG7TZW@localhost>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)
When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.
Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.
Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.
So it would seem
"So it is", is what you mean, Sten.
So much for my trying to be generous
into this at all. You started this argument because you didn't grasp
the issues and context, but you refuse to let it go, latching onto
"the uninitiated" as your excuse to keep fighting.
If someone gets the wrong "impression", it would only be due to their
own haste and misunderstanding. Anyone without an ax to grind should
clearly see that my statements, in their context, are perfectly clear
and valid.
"Only to the intelligent", you mean. "Initiated" or otherwise.
Think about it, Sten. If an operating system lacks multi-user
capability, then what could that possibly mean, other than the OS is a
single-user OS? What other alternatives are there? Zero-user OS?
Quasi-user OS? Semi-user? How about (negative number)-user?
(Irrational number)-user? (Imaginary number)-user?
(For the "uninitiated": An "imaginary" number is a number that, when
squared, produces a real number having a negative value. Squaring a
real number will always produce a real number having a positive value,
with the only exception being zero.)
Of course it can, and does. Otherwise, a car without 4-wheel drive
cannot "lack" 4-wheel drive, using your "arguments". A silent movie
cannot lack sound. A black and white photo cannot lack color.
No. There are no "misleading" statements on my part, regardless of
your efforts to fabricate such.
Your claim that OS/2 does allegedly "secure the file system" and that
file system security would be "redundant".
No, I am addressing MMI's claim that OS/2 "supports" multi-user
capability.
(sigh) I am not "knocking" anything. I am _clarifying_ MMI's claim.
Why won't you listen?
No. You are.
I'm not trying to, Sten.
No. Either OS/2 "has" multi-user capability out of the box (which it
doesn't), or it requires a 3rd-party add-on (which it does).
Your argument has always been clear, Sten. The problem is that it's
Just Plain Wrong, as OS/2 lacks that which it does not have, by
definition, regardless of whether or not it was "designed to have it".
Furthermore, your argument is rendered irrelevant by virtue of the
context of the original discussion; I didn't claim that OS/2 lacked
these things in isolation, I claimed that OS/2 lacked these things
_IN_ _RESPONSE_ _TO_ a claim that OS/2 did indeed have these things,
albeit via 3rd-party support.
Clear now? It would be if you would listen. Frankly, what I see is
someone who wanted to capitalize on an opportunity to pick an old
fight, and when shown to be in error regarding what "file system
security" means, chose to use "the uninitiated" as an excuse to keep
fighting rather than just admitting his error and backing off.
Why can't you grasp the simple fact that if X doesn't have Y, it lacks
Y ???? It doesn't matter a whit whether X "was designed to have" Y or
not. The statement still holds.
As I used it, all "lack" means is "not have", after all. If you are
reading more than that into it, It's Your Problem.
How do you know, Sten? Pulling another Johnson? You have no Earthly
way of knowing how "the uninitiated" perceived the original
discussion. You are simply projecting your own misunderstanding onto
"the uninitiated" in order to justify your continued arguing.
There was no "sufficient basis for [your] objection" in the first
place, Sten. You simply misread and misunderstood (or simply ignored)
the original discussion between MMI and myself. If MMI hadn't claimed
that OS/2 _HAD_ items X and Y in the first place (via 3rd party
add-ons), then there would be _NO_ _REASON_ for me to have clarified
that OS/2 _LACKS_ items X and Y out of the box.
Why can't you grasp that simple fact?
No, the way I see it is that you knew you had no argument against the
second claim, but thought you had an (old) argument against the first,
so you chopped the second and attacked the first in isolation,
completely ignoring the fact that the two _must_ be taken in tandem,
and then (ironically) acted as if I never even made the second
statement.
Apology accepted. Now let it go. Regardless of your objections, my
use of "lack" was correct.
Your attempts at redefining "lack" are amusing, Sten, but you are
simply contradicting yourself. Otherwise, we can make all kinds of
ridiculous claims. How about this one?
"Windows wasn't originally designed with security
in mind, so Windows _CANNOT_ _LACK_ _SECURITY_ !!"
Or:
"My economy car wasn't designed to have an automatic
transmission or air conditioning, so it _CANNOT_
_LACK_ _EITHER_ _ONE_ !!"
No, your attempts at redefinition are ludicrous, and a single-user OS,
_BY_ _DEFINITION_ lacks multi-user capabilities. Otherwise, if OS/2
cannot "lack" something, then it obviously cannot "have" that
something either, right? If OS/2 cannot "lack" multi-user
capabilities, then it cannot "have" them, even via a 3rd party add-on,
yes?
You cannot have it both ways, Sten.
OS/2 _is_ lacking many things, Sten, including multi-userAnd try to grasp why I made these statements. MMI was claiming that
OS/2 "has support" for both of those things. The opposite of "have"
(as in "have support", which is simply a different conjugation of "has
support") is "lack". I was simply clarifying that MMI's claims didn't
hold for "out of the box" OS/2.
If you have a problem with my statement that OS/2 "lacks" something,
then take it up with MMI who is claiming that OS/2 "has" that
something in the first place.
That OS/2 supports various kinds of 3rd party solutions, even out of the box,
isn't exactly news
But as you now know, I object to your use of 'lack(-ing)' without proper
qualifications, because some readers might erroneously conclude that OS/2 is
actually lacking something.
capabilities, and your objections, while noted, are irrelevant.
I'm glad you agree.Well, we now know - after a
prodding from me - that OS/2 is a single user system out of the box and is
therefore not lacking specific local file system security any more than a fish
lacks a bicycle.
You are giving yourself too much credit, which is ironic, considering
that you are the only one on record as having a problem with what I
stated, and why. Go back and look at the context of the discussion
between Martin (MMI) and myself:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] It allows me now to say that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a
MMI] local security support (not HPFS386 related), because there is
MMI] a 3rd party product that does that. How do you like it?
MMI] Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
MMI] directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
MMI]
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
The context of that part of the discussion _was_ _local_ _file_
_system_ _security_ _AS_ _I_ _SUBSEQUENTLY_ _DEFINED_ _IT_ FOR_ _YOU_
!!
Certainly.
Your question pretty much proves to me that you don't understand the
issues. Here's one issue: MMI is claiming that OS/2 _has_ that which
"it was not designed to have", so whether or not OS/2 "was designed"
to have that thing is 100% irrelevant, because OS/2 allegedly has it,
regardless of whether it was "designed to have" it or not. And, since
OS/2 allegedly has that which "it was not designed to have", I am well
within my rights to clarify that OS/2 _doesn't_ _have_ (which it the
_EXACT_ _SAME_ _THING_ as "lacks") that thing out of the box.
And frankly, it doesn't matter how you "read MMI". You've obviously
misread me, and it appears that you've misread him as well. It simply
suits your agenda to have read him as "ironic more than boastful",
that's all.
Then why can't you grasp the context of the original discussion? And
why can't you give "the uninitiated" credit for having enough
intelligence to do so?
No. Your original criticism was that I hadn't yet "learned" that OS/2
does indeed have "local file system security" as _you_ attempted to
define it.
And, like I keep saying, it appears that the only person on the planet
who required such "clarification" was you. Not "the uninitiated".
Not "newbies". Just you.
Indeed, it appears that you are simply using "the uninitiated" as an
excuse to keep up your unwarranted "criticisms".
By _not_ qualifying "Not clear at all" (as in "Not clear _to_ _me_ at
all"), you _were_ implying that it wasn't "clear at all" _in_
_general_ whether you like it or not.
You keep ignoring the context, Sten. The statement that it was
"lacking" something was made in response to a claim that it "had" that
something in the first place, rendering your "Something which it, per
definition, cannot be lacking" completely irrelevant. Why can't you
listen? When will you learn?
Why can't you listen, Sten?
Utter hogwash, Sten. If you could be bothered to take into account
that context that you keep ignoring, you would realize that there is
nothing "misleading" or "illogical" about saying "X lacks Y and Z out
of the box" as a response to "X has Y and Z" when "Y" and "Z" are
provided by a third-party add-on. Indeed, by clarifying that "Y" and
"Z" were not present out of the box, I was seeking to prevent MMI from
being "misleading" himself, accidentally or otherwise.
Also, there was nothing "missing" in my original statement to begin
with, regardless of your selective blindness.
I've grown weary of your feeble attempts to hide behind "newbies",
Sten. "Newbies", if they have a smidgen of intelligence, will grasp
the context of the discussion, and will realize that MMI _first_
_claimed_ that OS/2 _could_ _be_ a multi-user OS, and that I was
_just_ _clarifying_ the fact that it wasn't one out of the box.
Sorry, but I don't consider "when will you learn, Curtis?" to be a
"mild criticism". On the contrary, I see it as an insult, considering
that I didn't do anything wrong, here, as you have as much as
admitted, and considering how you chopped and snipped my statements
and didn't even grasp what was going on, but charged in and started
levelling criticisms anyway. "Mild" or not, your "criticism" is one
hundred percent unwarranted, and that is the point, here. Again, if
"the uninitiated" misunderstand the discussion, as you obviously did,
it's their problem, just as it's your problem. I have no intention of
taking responsibility for other people's stupidity, including yours.
If someone comes along and says that the book _can_ tell a different
story via a third-party add-on, then yes, I am well within my rights
to say that it _doesn't_ do so off-the-shelf, and there is nothing
"unreasonable (read: idiotic)" about it. On the contrary, it's you who
is being unreasonable (read: idiotic), by ignoring the _fact_ that
someone did indeed claim that the book could indeed tell a different
story via a third-party add-on.
If someone comes along and says that OS/2 can be a multi-user OS via a
third-party add-on, then yes, I am well within my rights to say that
it _isn't_ a multi-user OS out-of-the-box, and there is nothing
"unreasonable (read: idiotic)" about it. On the contrary, it's you who
is being unreasonable (read: idiotic), by ignoring the _fact_ that
someone did indeed claim that OS/2 can be a multi-user OS via a
third-party add-on.
And, for the umptheenth time, I am _not_ "knocking" OS/2. I am simply
_clarifying_ MMI's claims. That you ignore me when I tell you this is
insulting, Sten.
See above. And try comprehending it.
-- snip --
Listen, Sten, if you have such a problem with my use of the word
"lacks", then, in your mind, just substitute the phrase "doesn't have"
for the word "lacks" in my statements, and be on your merry way. And
don't worry so much about that which you cannot control, namely, how
"the uninitiated" perceive things, and how I choose to state things.
Curtis
Guest
In <cbsrab.3rg.1@kadaitcha.cx>, tholen@antispam.ham writes:
fake the identity of someone else, as you just did.
Yes, that sounds like a good description for someone that would
fake the identity of someone else, as you just did.
Guest
chrisv writes:
Classic evasion.
S
Sten Solberg
Guest
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:53:47 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
<snip>
save yourself some aggravation.
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
You are too easily insulted, Curtis."Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-eeP2IuMdU8Bd@localhost>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:50:46 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-45mQ8FHG7TZW@localhost>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)
When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.
Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.
Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.
So it would seem
"So it is", is what you mean, Sten.
So much for my trying to be generous
You're starting to get insulting, Sten; "generosity" doesn't enter
into this at all. You started this argument because you didn't grasp
the issues and context, but you refuse to let it go, latching onto
"the uninitiated" as your excuse to keep fighting.
<snip>
Thanks, that is a lot better. The best would be if you could just write it and
save yourself some aggravation.
How we choose to state things is important, not least in c.o.o.advocacy.
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
T
tholen@antispam.ham, the
Guest
tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
You have too many tickets on yourself.
Guest
In <KCfPnLt6tx2F98B81D0ERwHuAMudCiMe@alt.binaries.pictures.breasts>, "tholen@antispam.ham, the dazzled , substituting tart" <dYGEtcmqIMPJ@alt.binaries.pictures.breasts> writes:
Non sequitur. How ironic that you would fake someone's identity.
M
MMI
Guest
Curtis Bass wrote:
<snip>
Yeah, great, and when I said ("clarified" to be using the politically
correct word)) before that 3rd party Trumpet Winsock wasn't out of
the box, you bashed and beat me like hell. Why? I had my reason, hadn't
I?
According to these words of yours, when GITM claimed Win had items X and
Y via 3rd party support, I had a perfect reason to clarify, that these
X and Y weren't out of the box. Yet you attacked me at that time. Why?
Simply needed to bash an OS/2 user that day?
I'm really disappointed. And please, don't ever try to make up something
like I never mentioned 3rd party WRT OS/2 local security support. There
is discussion we had about this.
Cheers,
Martin
<snip>
<snip>
Yeah, great, and when I said ("clarified" to be using the politically
correct word
)) before that 3rd party Trumpet Winsock wasn't out of the box, you bashed and beat me like hell. Why? I had my reason, hadn't
I?
According to these words of yours, when GITM claimed Win had items X and
Y via 3rd party support, I had a perfect reason to clarify, that these
X and Y weren't out of the box. Yet you attacked me at that time. Why?
Simply needed to bash an OS/2 user that day?
I'm really disappointed. And please, don't ever try to make up something
like I never mentioned 3rd party WRT OS/2 local security support. There
is discussion we had about this.
Cheers,
Martin
C
chrisv
Guest
tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
How ironic.
Guest
chrisv writes:
Where is the alleged irony, chrisv?
Guest
tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
*plonk*
here...
*plonk*
Guest
In <yFNvYshcHcaf67831D3496ZzJCHJr2PE@twisted.social.harhar.com>, tholen@antispam.ham writes:
Yet another person faking an identity. Must be contagious.
C
Curtis Bass
Guest
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rt1xk$8eV@news.consultron.ca>...
convince us that 3rd party support somehow didn't qualify as true
support. That isn't clarification. In fact, it's the opposite. And
you flat-out ignored the fact that TGITM stated up-front that the
TCP/IP support he was talking about was 3rd party; there was no reason
for you to launch into your "out-of-the-box" tirades.
Curtis
You weren't "clarifying" anything -- you were simply trying toCurtis Bass wrote:
snip
There was no "sufficient basis for [your] objection" in the first
place, Sten. You simply misread and misunderstood (or simply ignored)
the original discussion between MMI and myself. If MMI hadn't claimed
that OS/2 _HAD_ items X and Y in the first place (via 3rd party
add-ons), then there would be _NO_ _REASON_ for me to have clarified
that OS/2 _LACKS_ items X and Y out of the box.
snip
Yeah, great, and when I said ("clarified" to be using the politically
correct word
the box, you bashed and beat me like hell. Why? I had my reason, hadn't
I?
According to these words of yours, when GITM claimed Win had items X and
Y via 3rd party support, I had a perfect reason to clarify, that these
X and Y weren't out of the box. Yet you attacked me at that time. Why?
Simply needed to bash an OS/2 user that day?
convince us that 3rd party support somehow didn't qualify as true
support. That isn't clarification. In fact, it's the opposite. And
you flat-out ignored the fact that TGITM stated up-front that the
TCP/IP support he was talking about was 3rd party; there was no reason
for you to launch into your "out-of-the-box" tirades.
Curtis
C
Curtis Bass
Guest
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-OByZYTGv99CT@localhost>...
mental substitution without my prompting -- that also would have saved
me some aggravation. Also, even if I had used "doesn't have" instead
of "lacks" in my posting, there is a good probability that you would
have still taken issue with the isolated claim that OS/2 "doesn't have
local file system security", based on the nature of your first post in
this discussion.
regardless of how they are stated, and there is always the possibility
that a given statement will be misread or misconstrued, again, no
matter how carefully it is worded.
Curtis
Who's to say you aren't just naturally insulting, Sten?On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:53:47 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-eeP2IuMdU8Bd@localhost>...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:50:46 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-45mQ8FHG7TZW@localhost>...
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)
When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.
Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.
Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.
CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.
As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.
So it would seem
"So it is", is what you mean, Sten.
So much for my trying to be generous
You're starting to get insulting, Sten; "generosity" doesn't enter
into this at all. You started this argument because you didn't grasp
the issues and context, but you refuse to let it go, latching onto
"the uninitiated" as your excuse to keep fighting.
You are too easily insulted, Curtis.
Well, what I don't understand is why you couldn't have just made the
mental substitution without my prompting -- that also would have saved
me some aggravation. Also, even if I had used "doesn't have" instead
of "lacks" in my posting, there is a good probability that you would
have still taken issue with the isolated claim that OS/2 "doesn't have
local file system security", based on the nature of your first post in
this discussion.
Indeed. However, as I hinted above, some statements may draw ire
regardless of how they are stated, and there is always the possibility
that a given statement will be misread or misconstrued, again, no
matter how carefully it is worded.
Curtis