This thread is really sad on many different levels.

I have to admit that I figured out, very early, that this poster was baiting to feed his ego (otherwise, he would have engaged with some of my questions). And even though the topic was fairly interesting (I would have been glued to more appropriate responses), I called him out and took him down. This is NOT a good example of appropriate behavior by anyone and I am speaking for myself, even though it takes two people for an argument. I could have stopped the thread very early, I could have just let him feed his ego and be done with it, or I could have saved everyone a lot of time and not replied at all.

Although it could be said that the OP / Submitter *might* take a word or two to heart and that, of itself, is a benefit, I believe that the time involved is more precious and, therefore, this thread should have been avoided.

The OP may return to this thread and post even more delirious nonsense - I recommend ignoring the rest of this thread.

The weight of knowing there are better examples to display to myself, mostly, is heavy enough to keep my away.

I was hoping for less debate over right vs. wrong and more discussion on better methods through an API for resources and accessibility without the need of root privileges. Seriously. I hope your iD is better for this, but I am doubting it. Is posting painted garbage and then taking honest questions and criticism personally considered trolling?

Is it possible to read slashdot without keeping my account active? And keep the name calling to a minimum, please. I thought you had some semblance of ethics when you brought this article to slashdot? Here is a hand: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics Lad? Do you know what they say about assumptions? Interesting tacks... let's count them up: Post to slashdot with a barely coherent conspiracy theory on losing the possibility of invention through unanticipated use. Gasp! Respond by thinking everyone else is wrong, because, after all, there is no way anyone else could possibly be right. Respond by claiming others are ignorant, despite the foreign nature of this conversation. Oh, let's wrap comments in what they meant to say! Lastly, since you don't understand, then others must be trolls. Who needs people that can help?

Troll? Never have and never will. It's all waxing rhapsodic of the merits of root privileges and conspiracy theories. I believe in access and openness. I believe in regular haircuts at a fair price. I believe in wearing a helmet when bicycle riding. And I believe in people's words the way they are presented, whether it is an OS developer's intent or a theorists' post to such a fine website like this. Oh, Slashdot, how many years I have read thee... How many poignant articles I have digested! Thanks for that last reply of nonsense - ranks right up there with the theory. :^)

Let us not be putting words in my mouth. Specifically, I did not say anything about totally safe. And let us not judge others about knowing / not knowing any OS - we are foreign in association, especially on the merit of OS experience. I suggest reading my words on their own merits, which is how they were crafted. If you believe in a mythically safe but unlimited API which would function the same as what we have, then cool; however, I did not describe one. Officially sanctioned sounds like Apple in a Big Brother ala 1984 / Galactic Empire sort of way, which is what I think most of us, including the developers I know, earnestly avoid. I believe I will still interpret Kondik's words as empowering device owners by taking steps toward abolishing the root requirements. Is there a man behind the curtain in an API conspiracy against the Dorothy and Toto of unanticipated invention? My belief is obviously different. Apple has a lot of "1984" history, btw. :^)

I do not miss big pictures. Steve Kondik's words about anything "... could be accomplished without exposing root" on these devices empowers the owner/user with more options, not limiting their activities by the foresight of someone else. The only way to believe in limits is to assume Kondik said he would provide limits in an API, despite stating his interest in abolishing the root requirement, which he did not. If we push Kondik's words to the extreme, would there be a need for root? Would the owner/user be more empowered or more limited by a completely open system where every aspect of the device is available via the API? Does opening up the device via an API breed more or less control by the developer? Low-hanging fruit is naturally to be addressed first, but most developers (from my experience) act in earnest with less limits on root capabilities.

Is Steve Kondik saying he wants to remove those features or remove the need for elevated privileges of those features? I read his article as the latter and that means an increase to the ability of the owner to use a device in ways that are unanticipated.