> At Mon, 01 May 2006 01:25:37 -0400,
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Perhaps what was meant was that you embrace a system that actively
prohibits it. Most current systems do not require *or* prohibit. So
they are null ops for the purposes of examples. IIRC, the AS/400 does
require this sort of confinement, and even uses hardware capabilities.
These systems are *extremely* common in the U.S.: almost every bank and
insurance company has a great number of them.
-={C}=-
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
