On Mon, 01 May 2006 04:57:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Mathew P. ] on Monday 01 May 2006 02:43 \__
>
>> On 2006-04-30, ray spake thusly:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:44:51 +0000, Mathew P. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Three words:
>>>>
>>>> Reliability
>>>>
>>>> Portability
>>>>
>>>> Scalability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You missed one: security
>>
>> Perhaps, but wouldn't that come under "reliability"
>
> In my opinion, security should often be assumed. It's only longed for when
> you realise what happens in the lack of security, i.e. prevalence of
> loopoles. To elaborate, lack security is where function is given which can
> be exploited by the wrong people. Even buffer overflows are a matter of
> handling edge cases properly.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Roy
Reliability should be assumed as well. It is indeed when reliability or
security are lacking that the entire experience is compromised. What's
more, they should be there by default - it's insane to expect a home user
to spend much time making her computer reliable or secure.
|
|
