Re: [Fsfe-uk] Linux for Kids Briefing

[PFJ]

Hi,

> > That's not the point. The point is that a kid of 5 or 6 should not be
> > able to bring down a server system. If he/she can, then it really shows
> > either that the bods who put the system in place don't know what they're
> > doing or that the system itself is complete rubbish.
> 
> Its the entire point if you can see past the red mist into what actually
> motivates people. Just because a kid can walk through the Head's door
> and trash his office, doing so isn't justified purely on the grounds
> that the Head should have been more careful or needs a better door lock.

I can see and understand your point. Maybe my wording wasn't the best

> Most adults would see such behaviour as irresponsible and likely to
> transfer that view even more so to a salesman who used it to demonstrate
> that the locks he was pedalling were more secure and less expensive.

If the lock was fundamentally broken so that if someone (say) turns the
handle the wrong way (which effectively is all that my son did), then a
parent would have the right to say "you brought in on yourself as it's
well known that that type of lock is rubbish and how is a 6 year to know
the problem".

> The way you have written this makes it look like it was a deliberate
> act. If it was a complete fluke or accident, there might be some
> justification.

I restrict the websites Richard can see (basically CBBC/CBeebies and
Nickjr), he cannot understand the books on my bookshelves which leads to
two conclusions, fluke (though it was W2K last year and W2003 this, so
the fluke element should have been fixed) and accident.

TTFN

Paul

-- 
"If I face my God tomorrow, I can tell Him I am innocent.
I've never harmed anyone. I have cheated no one. 
I have deceived no one. I have hurt no one. 
Except myself. And that He will forgive me." - Hans Holzel

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part