On Aug 7, 2009, at 10:08 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
Story time. :)
You're also falling into the trap of believing that because it _can_
happen, it has to happen (Murphy's Law). It punishes the many for the
sins of the few and is a very poor foundation for progress.
It wasn't a position, just a story. Though I do think a Murphy's law
approach to security is better than a credulous one. But I don't think
the Plan 9 approach is credulous. It just places priority on the
network rather than the machine and assumes valuable machines will be
treated that way.
Plan 9 has a good balance of cost of security against eventual real
protection and forces you to re-evaluate the accepted paradigms. That
is sufficient reason to explore Plan 9, if not to adopt it wholesale.
I agree completely. When I have a budget for hardware I plan on
adopting it wholesale actually. I wouldn't be here if I weren't
interested in different paradigms and evaluating them.
--
Daniel Lyons
