> They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access.
That's what I said. ;)
> One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing.
Except none of that was being discussed. Only log access.
> They're explicitly talking about not logging into machines for log access.
Why can't you just admit that you didn't read the thread properly rather than insulting all of our intelligence with these piss poor mental gymnastics where you redefine the context of what people had very clearly written.
Because I read the thread? How many times do you want me to repeat myself? They're talking about the specific case of not logging in for log access, but that is partially justified by the wider desire to never have people log in at all. You can separate them but the original conversation didn't.
> You can separate them but the original conversation didn't.
The conversation you're replying to, however, did. I know this for a fact because I was involved in that conversation and I made that distinction myself ;)
That's what I said. ;)
> One of the ways to make it seem a reasonable suggestion is the broader topic of not logging into machines at all, ever, and why that may be a good thing.
Except none of that was being discussed. Only log access.