[542] in Coldmud discussion meeting

Re: To-Do list..

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sun Nov 6 13:27:10 1994 )

From: image@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Jeff T.P.)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 13:26:17 -0600

> The book you sited earlier said 'unauthorized' changing.  How 'online'
> is identical to 'unauthorized' is the point that continues to escape
> me.

James comes up with a few good points here.  Some people have no access
to the unix side of the server they are running.  I've run three servers
in the past and only one of those could I have actually logged into the
system the server was running on.  These situations makes it very
difficult to edit a textdump.

In the normal everyday world of Unix.  There is nothing that stops a
superuser from recompiling the Kernal and rebooting.  I don't see why
ColdMud needs to have this extra 'security.'  It simply makes things
more difficult for a large majority of people, especially Admins who are
watching the server while the Chief Admin is gone.  If a horrendous
error pops up in a protected method, the only recourse would be to
shutdown the server until the Chief Admin returns and fixes it.  However
the Admin could edit the method and avoid long down times without an
overzealous compile protector.  I've been the FireFighter on two MOOs.
I've saved the systems from going down.  I can't agree with a in-server
compilation protection scheme.
--
Life In The So-Called Information Age . . .
                      . . . One Man's Garbage Is Another Man's Treasure.