At Mon, 01 May 2006 14:07:23 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because this usage is absolute and universal in the context of > protection mechanisms, PLEASE do not confuse the issue by using the > *legal* sense of enforcement (which simply isn't enforcement at all) in > any discussion about computer protection or policy. If you *must* use > it, be careful to qualify it, because it is being used in a context > where its default meaning is something else.
I believe I was sufficiently clear. It's ok to ask for clarification, as misunderstandings can happen. But I also expect everybody to apply common sense. > Do you agree with my statement that in the absence of OS support, > encapsulation cannot be enforced (in the sense that its violation cannot > be mechanically prevented) in a shared access computing system? Yes. > I will go further: in the absence of OS support, such violations cannot > (in general) even be *detected*, so the suggestion that their can be > deferred to social or legal enforcement actually means that you are > declaring that these types of encapsulation can be violated without any > human consequence at all -- or at least that the possibility of such a > violation with serious human consequence places the problem domain, by > definition, outside of the applications that are "of interest to the > Hurd". I can't parse that paragraph. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
