Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 07/01/2007 hora 02:35: > The right question to ask is if there is a significant difference in > the harm that can result from such an arrangement if I am out of > control compared to when I retain control. I believe that to be the > case.
I may not remember well the past debate, but did you already give facts supporting that belief? I'm not sure that opaque memory as we discussed it now can do any harm per se. > Nono, I agree that within the system there is no permanent, or more > specifically irreversible change in your arrangement. The change > happens outside the system, involving the actors, that means real > human like you and me. Well, then what is the irreversible change involving actors that can occur with a Hurd with opaque memory that couldn't with the Hurd without opaque memory? > This assumes that revocation is feasible, which may not always be the > case, depending on what the relationship of power is between the > actors and the application. Another point to consider. In what case wouldn't revocation be possible? I think it's up to the designers of the space bank to gaurantee that revocation is always possible. And I don't see any sensible reason to do otherwise. Curiously, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
