> I'm going to have to disagree. Security is a pretty major issue, and
> anything that improves system security on desktop and server Linux is
> probably a win.
Except it isn't. It greatly complicates the system for little or no net gain in security. First rule: if the host might be compromised you must not trust it. They admit the existence of this rule and admit the only solution is to put some of the checkpoints on a different system. They fail to see the obvious, put them ALL on a different system. The people who designed syslog understood security better than Lennart does.
That is The UNIX Way. We learn what works and keep it.
"The access is granted by a shared library and a command line tool."
Haven't we seen this story enough times to see the pattern? The tool will be minimal, just for quick use by UNIX diehards to shut them up, while all 'serious' use will be expected to be through the API/library.
For a 'real programmer' it doesn't matter, but UNIX philosophy envisions a spectrum of skills, not a binary user/developer divide. Windows philosophy on the other hand is different. Remember that a key Microsoft design goal for the registry was to fit into their overarching project to end 'power users.' Professional developers write code, users click on widgets and nothing in the middle.