Warp wrote:
>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
> different groups which have different access privileges, 

You mean like file permissions and such? Sure, that makes sense.

>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
> system, but at least the command-line version does.)

I've never seen a UNIX system that would say "you can't delete that file, 
but do you know the password to any of these accounts that are in the same 
group as that file? If so, type it in." :-) That would be user friendly, and 
UNIX doesn't like user friendly. ;-)

Actually, it's more like a leak of security information you probably 
shouldn't be leaking. That's a joke.

>> Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.
> 
>   Wouldn't be the first time that patent infringement has been claimed on
> someone infringing only a part of the patent.

Well, sure. There are infringement claims on things you're not infringing at 
all. The question is whether you *win* the case, in which case the answer is 
"no".  Not that you don't have to fight the case, but it's hard to imagine a 
patent system where infringement is obvious on its face.  The ruling being 
discussed by the Supreme Court would go a long way towards helping.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message