S
Sten Solberg
Guest
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:43:29 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:
than "doesn't have". Your suggested mental exercise would only serve to sweep
your errors, as well as my opinion, under the carpet.
"effective/-ly".
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
I guess that wouldn't be you, Curtis"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-OByZYTGv99CT@localhost>...
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.
Who's to say you aren't just naturally insulting, Sten?
Sure, but in this case I see "lacks" to be both illogical and more of a snub
than "doesn't have". Your suggested mental exercise would only serve to sweep
your errors, as well as my opinion, under the carpet.
Agreed, but our disagreement might then have been reduced to a discussion of
"effective/-ly".
I agree with this, as general statements.
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"