[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Supporting POSIX *users*

From: Alfred M\. Szmidt
Subject: Re: Supporting POSIX *users*
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:20:02 +0100

   > No, it is the fault of the user.  Take a capability based system,
   > I give all programs the same capabilities, so it works like it
   > does on a normal system, who is at fault?  The system architect
   > for giving the user the ability to set the capabilities?

   Absolutely. There is no conceivable justification for this bad
   design, and no functional requirement for it.

So what you are saying is that I shouldn't be able to do the above in
a `properly desgined system'? You'll make me laugh quite hard if you
answer yes... Cause it sounds awfully like treachours computing, where
someone else dictates what I can do on/with my machine.

   > If you put artifical restrictions like that, then you can make
   > anything work as you want.  A is false, since there exists
   > `perfect' oil in the world (C is also false for the record) so
   > your whole version of my analogy is false.

   Alfred, I did not introduce these restrictions. They (fairly)
   faithfully capture the current state of commodity software.

You did indeed introduce them.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]