Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!lynx.northeastern.edu!cschmidt From: cschmidt@lynx.northeastern.edu Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: How secure should computers be? Message-ID: Date: 22 Jun 91 03:28:33 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 22 > Well, back in pre-UNIX days, computers _were_ secure, and serious > programmers (the kind of people who hang out here) didn't like it. > You couldn't see any files other than your own... you couldn't run > a process in the background... and so on. > > The notorious "insecurity" of UNIX is _versatility_. > > I'm amused that the same kind of people who hated secure operating > systems when they had them, now claim operating systems should be > more secure. The message quoted above contains one of the many lies about Unix that are responsible for its proliferation. An operating system can offer convenient resource sharing without being as insecure as Unix. I remember reading in early Unix release notes that Unix was designed for a "benign environment". The early Unix designers had different requirements then. To pretend that convenient resource sharing requires lax security is to live in a make-believe world. We programmers and our clients deserve better. Christopher Schmidt cschmidt@lynx.northeastern.edu