Re: Broken dream of mine :(

[Michal Suchanek]

2009/9/23  <address@hidden>:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:35:02AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> Your system is basically equivalent for the purposes of being "drm
>> capable" but loses some functionality.
>
> Another thing you keep reiterating that makes no sense whatsoever. If
> it's easy to implement opaque memory for DRM, it's also easy to
> implement it for the (alleged) positive use cases. If it's hard to
> implement it for positive use cases, it's also hard to implement it for
> DRM.

Iris which I am referring to in the quoted paragraph allows using
opaque memory only in processes registered as system services (as
opposed to allowing all processes to use opaque memory in Coyotos).

This is an artifically added policy which does not remove the feature:
opaque memory.

Working around this policy is easy so it has little practical impact
on feasibility of drm on this system as compared to Coyotos.

>
> On the whole, we believe that it's better not to make it easy.
>
> You claim that it doesn't matter either way: if something is possible in
> theory, it's as good as if was already implemented. This of course is
> total nonesense too. It's possible in theory to implement a capability
> system on top of Linux, so why even bother with other designs? It's as
> good as if Linux already implemented them...
>

Where did I claim that?

You keep twisting what I say like this. I wonder who is talking nonsense here.


Thanks

Michal