>
> > No, it is the fault of the user. Take a capability based system,
> > I give all programs the same capabilities, so it works like it
> > does on a normal system, who is at fault? The system architect
> > for giving the user the ability to set the capabilities?
>
> Absolutely. There is no conceivable justification for this bad
> design, and no functional requirement for it.
>
> So what you are saying is that I shouldn't be able to do the
> above in a `properly desgined system'? You'll make me laugh
> quite hard if you answer yes... Cause it sounds awfully like
> treachours computing, where someone else dictates what I can
> do on/with my machine.
A properly designed system makes it very difficult for an ignorant
person to shoot themselves in the foot. A properly designed gun does
not shoot with the safety on. In reality it is impossible to keep
someone from disabling a safety, but deliberately designing a gun so
that you can disable the functionality of the safety is absurd. Why put
a safety on the gun in the first place?
-={C}=-
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
