From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10808211011q3792b948td232717c0ccc292a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:11:10 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <87FC045629EC20370EB3CD77@F74D39FA044AA309EAEA14B9> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <87FC045629EC20370EB3CD77@F74D39FA044AA309EAEA14B9> Subject: Re: [9fans] Using the Acme Editor Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04b1cb2e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Eris Discordia wrote: > Basically, a terminal should not hold _any_ information on its users. Where > does the security of not keeping authentication information on a so-called > terminal go when you _keep_ it on the "terminal?" But with multiple users > you're going to need authentication. Right? Eris, this is getting a little boring. Are you really this ignorant of what's going on? I don't mind ignorance per se but you keep wasting people's time as they try to explain CS 101 to you. Maybe you could start a blog and we could all ignore it -- it's much easier that way. > > My impression: the UNIX authentication "farce" happened because UNIX began > as a replacement to a time-sharing system for more or less physically secure > computers but then was downsized to an OS--many OS's, in fact--also usable > on personal computers, e.g. 386BSD. Your impression? Well, that's one way to go at it.. Of course, there is the option of acquiring knowledge. It is more work however. If this is your picture of what happened then you need to go back and do some reading. You leave the "impression", to me anyway, that you read a lot but I can not tell that you actually do much of anything. And, to top it off, you exist only as an imaginary wikipedia entry. List manager: can we *please* just boot this guy until he comes back as a real person? It's getting old. ron