The problem I have is not necessarily with this particular instance; it's with the philosophy of restricting someone else's freedom "for their own good".
I should not have to pay because "more and more clueless people appeared". Shall we all then live to the lowest common denominator? My God, soon we'd all be using Windows Starter Edition! :-)
One way I got to be a "knowledgable, responsive [responsible?] user" was to hurt myself doing "stupid" things. Ctrl-Alt-Backspace *should* hurt -- once.
And you know, code review isn't so bad: when I coded at the keypunch, it required more debugging than when I used the coding pad. Writing code that I (and hopefully others) reviewed not only made better code then, but taught me (and others) to write better in the future. (I would recommend reading "The Psychology of Computer Programming" by Gerald M Weinberg for more information). And if I talked to someone who'd done rm -rf incorrectly, maybe I could avoid their pain.
If it is true that natural evolution is to produce buggy code quicker, than perhaps we should resist. Maybe sometimes celerity isn't a virtue, and the modern motion of the inevitability of bugs in code isn't true.
The assumption that kernel code is somehow special and should be specially treated is wrong -- *someone* is going to depend on code you write no matter how big or small the project, and an error in that code is gonna cause *someone* some trouble. If you don't believe that, than you should not be writing code for others to use.
File permissions, quotas, etc are there to mainly stop a system user from hurting other system users. That's one of the normal policies of an OS. On the other hand, training wheels are fine for novices, but they are meant to come off.
Again, I'm not talking about removing for everyone the equivalent of safety gear in a program. What I'm talking about is deliberately engineering something so that any safety gear is [almost] impossible to remove. In normal use, I should be able to use something safely, but, in my freedom, I must be able to remove or modify it *even if you don't think I should*.
Keeping up with the car analogy, would you buy a car deliberately built so it cannot go faster than 65 MPH and attempts to circumvent that would be illegal?
I do understand -- and appreciate -- the point that they aren't only trying to protect others, but that the kernel devs don't want to hear clueless whining.
My point -- and really my main point -- is that when you operate to remove another's freedom, it had better be at more than just a whim, and more than your convenience. In this case, that fact that you have a couple people saying "don't do it!" to me means that it shouldn't be done.
It's not as if there aren't a lot of other kernel decisions that people can't whine about, you know. This is just yet another reason for those on LKML to say "RTFM. Go Away.". :-)