I am amused to see that jwz has deleted my comment where I disagreed with his brain-damage on his journal. To preserve it, here it is (probably looks similar to my journal topic which was on the same topic)

It's not impossible -- if you're concerned about user binaries, you can
implement a number of solutions, such as limiting quota, mounting /home
as noexec, etc etc to keep (or at least strongly dissuade) users from
breaking policy. There's a lot of fudge ground between a complete
solution and a minor deterrent, and suggesting that it's not worth having
an implementation that's not bulletproof seems wrongheaded. Further,
having a system that implements policy in some fashion can be very
useful, and doing so does not equate to treating users as criminals or
children. There's a lot of conceptual ground between RMS's early advocacy
of systems with no passwords/security where you trust users completely
and military-grade locked-down systems.

I find it disappointing that jwz would delete it, but then, I suppose it defeats the purpose of his ranting if someone starts a meaningful discussion that calls into question if his rant is well-founded. The "angry-and-always-right" motif is almost as fun as the "piss-on-both-sides-in-politics-and-that-makes-me-cool" motif that a lot of corporate media arrange to be prevalent. Go jwz!