On 2013-09-11 15:41, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/11/2013 03:32 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 15:20, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/11/2013 02:46 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Asking her "Do you want to make security changes to share directory
>>> /home/phyllis/Share?" Or
>>>
>>> Do you want to make security changes to share Printer XYZ?
>>>
>>> Would make sense.
>> My marriage would be facing serious troubles, if my wife opens any
>> port on our shared machines ;)
>>
>> Seriously, I think you guys are forgetting Linux isn't a
>> Single-User-Single-Seat OSes.
>>
>> Ralf
>>
>>
> Well, it is. Also.
Sure, Single-User-Single-Seat systems are a singular, degenerated case
of Multi-User-Multi-Seat systems.
> And hat's really the core here. It's so damned
> different in these two cases.
Correct, it means that Single-Seat-Single-User focused approaches
often lack the generality required on Multi-User-Multi-Seat systems.
It often means approaches, which are easily applicable on other OSes,
will never fly on Linux.
Ralf
This discussion could easily fly away. Trying to stay on topic: what we
are discussing so far is hints for firewall configuration for each
application. I don't think anyone should be upset by that. The key issue
is just *who* is punching the hole. But isn't this as simple as having
administrative rights for this, which some wifes have and some don't?
--alec