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

Re: Can Debian's paranoia be tamed



On 23 Nov, 2012, at 20:13, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:

> lina wrote:
>> On Friday 23,November,2012 01:00 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> I've a laptop whose *SOLE* purpose in life is to be used in a manner
>>> that a even I would never do on a machine with real data on it.
>>> It has intrinsically the best security in place
>>>   Only _*I*_ have physical access to the machine.
>>>   It has no possibility of connecting to the internet.
>>>   It will *never* be updated.
>>>   The installation CD lives in the drive, for various reasons the hard
>>> drive is wiped and reinstall done 2-3 times per week.
>>> 
>>> When I boot I want to do *ANYTHING*!
>>> HOW?
>>> 
>>> {Owl now ducks for cover from incoming brick-a-brac ;}
>> 
>> Out of pure curiosity, why this machine to be "chastened" in this way?
> 
> *ROFL* - you were much gentler than various long time friends and relatives ;)
> 
> Actually there are solid reasons my work pattern. As to the dramatic description, that has a different rationale.
> 
> As to the machine, I'm a "learn by doing" learner. In my three score and ten I've learned that failure can be much more instructive than success.

It's said, the more risk the more rewards. 

My head is a bit small to understand it profoundly. Anyway thanks for your reply. 

> Therefore I can assume the machine will eventually be trashed in varying degrees. As to the frequent reinstalls, I haven't decided what configuration I want. The only way to find out is to try each of the options.
> 
> As to the statement, I was editorializing a bit (my bits are larger than average). One of my pet peeves are those saying that automatically applied security blankets can solve all security problems. I was trying to hint that security in the end depends on the user. *nix environments have historically been multi-user. That made it reasonable that the OS be very security conscious. Personal computers are called *personal* for a reason.
> 
> 


Reply to: