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

Re: secure installation

 So, if we all adopt your attitiude toward everything, then people
would go for a walk in the park and get sprayed with deadly
insecticide by pest control people, or drive down the road and run off
a bridge that was collassped which no one bothered to barricade.

> But who is the ultimate responsible party? The clueless computer user
> that tries to use some 'new fancy operating system' or the volunteer
> developer of that system? Put your own political opinion onto that
> question - rhetorically.
> No, if someone WANTS to use lokkit, then they certainly can, yes? Am I
> assuming enough that they can 'apt-get install lokkit' and then
> configure it? Make up a web page on how _you_ think you should harden
> a Debian install with Lokkit as the cornerstone of your how-to and
> post it.
> As several others have pointed out, and as we have seen in the world
> of more popular operating systems from Redmond, installing a Firewall
> that defaults 'on' provides you no real extra protection if you don't
> know what in the hell you're doing with it. (You are coming to a sad
> realization, cancel or allow?).
> AFAIAC, if some clueless person installs an operating system they
> don't know and get themselves into some trouble, it's THEIR fault.
> It's not Debian's fault, it's not Linus' fault, it's not Deb or Ian's
> fault. It's not the kernel developer, it's not the CD distributor,
> it's not the mirror host. You're responsible for your own stupidity
> when it comes to linux, I think that's a well established aspect of
> the community already; for good or ill. Very few Linux experts suffer
> fools elegantly. If someone is looking for a more stupid proof distro,
> perhaps Ubuntu or SUSE would serve them better.
> Let's not dumb down Debian for the rest of the world because a
> clueless user _might_ compromise their own credit card numbers.

Reply to: