Author: ron minnichron minnich Date: Aug 21, 2008 10:14
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Eris Discordia
gmail.com> 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.
| 
