Re: POSIX

[Bas Wijnen]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 01:01:13PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    It should definitely not include things "because we want POSIX in
>    the foundation".
> 
> Nobody is arguing that we should implement POSIX in the kernel (I
> assume that you mean kernel by foundation).

No, not really, I meant the core of the system, or in other words, the parts
that processes cannot avoid using.  It pretty much covers the same code as the
TCB I guess.

> Just because one uses POSIX doesn't mean that one is somehow making a less
> secure system contrary to popular notes around here by some people.

It all depends on which parts of POSIX you are using.  If you're using UIDs,
then you are indeed making the system less secure (compared to our theoretical
capability-based system).

>    It is.  The Hurd is taking awfully long to be released in a stable
>    state.  It better be awfully good.  If after so many years we come
>    up with something which isn't significantly better then POSIX,
>    people will rightfully laugh at us.
> 
> Let them laugh.  Never bothered us before, why should it bother us
> now?

I'm not bothered if people laugh at me for some silly reason.  However, I
wrote "rightfully", which means I would laugh at us as well in such a
situation (and I probably wouldn't be part of "us", but that's a different
matter. :-) ).

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature