> On 2007/10/29, at 3:43, Uriel wrote: >> >> I'm still wondering what is the cost of having path be (/bin .) (other >> than running scripts actually becoming much faster when access to . is >> slow). >> >> For once I'm with don, just because perfect security is impossible >> doesn't mean we should stop trying to get closer to it, specially when >> the cost (as far as anyone has been able to tell in this case) is >> negligible.
i didn't say we should stop trying; i said if you're using "any" software you didn't write, you are implicitly trusting the author. we've all read 'reflections on trusting trust'. if trust is not implied then each user must first examine the plan9 kernel and all other programs and compile the parts that he has understood and verified to be trustworthy using a "trusted" compiler, before even worrying about whether to put . in his path or just use ./foo whenever he needs to. >> >> What is next? we get rid of file permissions 'because your coworkers >> can already pick the pile of papers lying on your desk so you should >> trust them anyway. >> >> Seeing this kinds of arguments is quite sad, specially given how far >> ahead plan9 is from every other system when it comes to *real* >> *practical* security. nobody suggested getting rid of any of the current security features or not improving the security for plan9. i'm all for any necessary fixes and sane/practical/reasonable improvements. >> >> And I'm an idiot, but this whole discussion has become quite stupid. >> >> uriel
