Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Mon, 01 May 2006 07:24:30 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 08:36 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > At Mon, 01 May 2006 01:25:37 -0400,
> > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I actually find this very curious. RMS has been willing to let the world
> > > evolve into understanding over time, and this has been greatly
> > > beneficial. Marcus is trying to take a "giant leap." I don't think it is
> > > going to work, but it is certainly interesting.
> > 
> > This is really strange.  No operating system in wide use supports the
> > confinement property as you advocate it.  Not using confinement in the
> > system design really is the conservative choice.  In another mail you
> > said that my proposal was radical.  I wish I would have the honor of
> > finding a radical new operating system design, but that is of course
> > not the case.
> 
> Omitting confinement is not the radical part. The radical part is
> omitting encapsulation -- which is what I clearly said if you had
> bothered to read.

In the same sense that the processes are trivially confined, they are
also trivially encapsulated.  Again, this is already true in all
commonly used operating systems today, with the notable exception of
suid in Unix, which is readily replaced by more appropriate
mechanisms.

Thanks,
Marcus