On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:32:09PM -0800, Stewart Stremler spake thusly: > Ooooh, I really don't like that. I really don't *want* my system to > "come back up just the way I left it", I want it to "come up in a known > good state", which is something quite different.
Of course you can completely reinitialize the system state if you like. But it is not the sort of system that you are probably accustomed to where coming up in a known good state is such a big deal. That's like coming from a Windows background and griping about how long Linux takes to boot up. Waiting on Linux to reboot is not likely a problem you will have often. > But if the system saves state after it's buggered itself but before it > locks up, bringing back up the box just leads to rebooting into a wedged > state. They have solved these problems. It really doesn't happen like that. The idea is that this system is extremely reliable. It doesn't get wedged. > Finally... what use is fine-grain access control when the program can simply > demand total access and refuse to do anything until it gets it? Why would you want to run such a malicious program? Software written for this sort of system would not do that. -- Tracy Reed http://ultraviolet.org This message is cryptographically signed for your protection. Info: http://copilotconsulting.com/sig
pgpnknDwCLZDd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- KPLUG-List mailing list [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
