Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?)

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   > You want a absurd
   > level of security that is simply not needed for a system that one uses
   > on a daily basis.

   Based on the number of daily break-ins, this statement is pretty
   obviously inconsistent with observed reality.

I have yet to this day see someone break into one of my systems, and
I'm simply don't care about security.  Infact, I love security so much
that my whole home directory is avaiable through http for anyone to
browse.

     1. POSIX is not a securable foundation, but you are unable to let 
        it go, or
     2. You imagine that real security must be horribly invasive
        and therefore unusable.

   Which is it?

It is 3: POSIX is a securable foundation.  The amount of security
breakage that one can do is minimal, the remainin 0.1% are not
feasable for real world programs.