On Thu, April 9, 2015 13:12, zep wrote: > frankly, this blows my mind. not long ago there was a huge kerfuffle > over the change to only allow (as someone defined it 'secure') certain > passwords, requiring numbers, special characters, some minimum length > and that -had to be done- because people didn't use proper passwords > and couldn't be trusted to just use what was appropriate/correct > for their environment. > > now a completely reverse the position, plain text showing user names > to the world (which has always been considered to be poor security > at best) is just 'yeah, whatever you feel like doing. go ahead.' > User interface decisions are never driven by security. If security is mentioned then it is used as a fig-leaf to shut down dissent. Security when applied to these sorts of decisions is the patriotism of the FOSS world. The last refuge of scoundrels who have no desire to admit error and wish no discomfort from making any. The actual reasons for change usually come down to the aesthetic values of a small group of developers, or often a single individual, with the power to impose their vision on the rest of humanity. And the desire to do so. I cannot imagine why. . . -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3