Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 30/05/2006 hora 00:52: > > Then you break the Flexibility requirement. I don't see a valid > > reason to do so. If you want to break a requirement, you have to > > point out a strong need for it. > I did, but you cut it away: > > > I don't think it's useful to build a whole system of > > > sub-permissions on it, because it will only result in accidental > > > disclosure of certain parts (because the default is unrestricted. > > > Making the default opaque would solve this, but at a much too high > > > cost IMO).
You don't agree that default should be opacity and then think that flexible permissions would not be so useful because they would result in leaks. I don't think that is pointing a strong need to break Flexibility, but YMMV. Personnally, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
