The "philosophy" was dead for a long, long time aready... deal with it

But I'm also talking about something a bit more subtle, which says "[don't restrict me] ** only because you think it's for my own good **". In this case, the reasoning is "let's disable it because it's not reliable and someone using it might have negative results". As a philosophy, this says "protect people from harming themselves".

My point is that to go down this path *in a general way* is a slippery slope; where do we stop in making a "safe" system, one where a {user,developer} can't hurt himself? Shall we, for example, as a policy decision, eliminate the ability to remove files from users and make it for root only?

I am aware, of course, that different functionality is directed towards users of different experience levels, and how that might affect any let's-protect-the-user-from-himself decisions.

But much learning comes from making mistakes -- and the "baby-proofing" one does in a home with toddlers is only enough to so that the baby doesn't get permanently damaged before he learns.

So I re-emphasize that we must be careful not to *blindly* apply the "let's remove that function for his own good" philosophy. Each case must be thought about carefully. And even then, should the decision to be made to protect the user from himself, it should be easy for that user to say "I've learned I can hurt myself, and I don't want to be coddled/restricted anymore because I've also learned how to use that sharp knife you were shielding me from". That's where freedom comes in.

And I re-state that the particular function in this article is surely not likely to be used by someone who doesn't already have the level of knowledge to understand the potential pitfalls. That is, he should not need to be protected, as he knows the stove is hot already.