So, you expect the operating system do disobey the user when it determines the user actions could be harmful?
If I tell my machine to do something, I want it to carry my orders.
If I tell my machine to do something, I want it to carry my orders.
Regardless, you've presented a false dichotomy. That the only way to combat the risk is to prevent users from using their operating system as they see fit. That's not what I suggested, at all, and trying to frame an argument around it is dishonest.
What you can do is to keep ZFS-like file snapshots and allow the user to return to a moment in time previous to the infection.
But their are numerous things you can do to protect a computer from your average user. Not doing these things because of exceptions is wrong.
And may render a lot of protective measures unnecessary.
It didn't sound like it.
Education is great. However, no amount of education will remove the need for real protections. This doesn't mean you disobey a you keep trying to suggest.
Look to the real world of examples. Education doesn't trump protection. Take anything you need to pass a test for or need a license for. Their are still protections put into place to prevent abuse. Hunting license, gun license, driver's license. All have protections on top of education because people make mistakes.
Finally, quit trying to suggest that protection means it prevents a user from doing what they want. Again, it's a false dichotomy and continuously trying to argue it devalues any point you are trying to make.
Have you ever seen a false positive report from an anti-malware application? I have.
I downloaded this 'Free Screensaver Pack' and I want to run it! Who does this virus scanner think it is? Quit telling me that its a bad idea and just goddamn do what I want you to.
If bad software exists I don't want my computer to warn me that it might be a bad idea to run it, I'd rather apple just creates a walled garden so I can don't even have the option to command my computer to do something bad.