I think that the deletion of either or both set*uid or the saved-set-id
mechanisms, based on a demagogical choice as presented, would be a mistake.
It would be a complete rewrite of the paradigms which, collectively, define
what a *NIX-like OS is.

I suppose that next, we're going to disallow chown() completely and replace
it with take_ownership_of().  Or, while we're at it, automatically allow
anyone who is in group wheel on any machine networked on the domain to
have de facto super-user privileges.

Sarcastic?  Yes.  Facetious?  Of course.  But we're rewriting some major
semantics which I'm not entirely convinced need to be rewritten.

What one person elects to do with one's kernel is fine if one can accept
and fix the potential breakage (which I have no doubt is within said
person's grasp).  I don't hold with that objective, and I don't look
forward to having that particular concept or perception of reality
moulded onto my own.  How far out of line am I this time?

				--*greywolf;
--
*BSD: It keeps on going...and going...and going...