On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 17:48 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Today it is the fault of the system architect, whose crappy system > design made this inevitable. It cannot be the user's fault, since > they had no authority or ability to alter circumstances. > Responsibility follows from authority. > > No, it is the fault of the user. Take a capability based system, I > give all programs the same capabilities, so it works like it does on a > normal system, who is at fault? The system architect for giving the > user the ability to set the capabilities?
Absolutely. There is no conceivable justification for this bad design, and no functional requirement for it. > What happens to your analogy when (a) there is exists only bad oil > in the world, (b) you need to get your kid to a hospital, and (c) > the auto vendor has designed an automobile that requires perfect > oil but converts better oil into bad oil before using it? Yes, in > the face of point (c) I would blame the car manufacturer, because > they have made it impossible for me to act sensibly. The design is > defective. > > If you put artifical restrictions like that, then you can make > anything work as you want. A is false, since there exists `perfect' > oil in the world (C is also false for the record) so your whole > version of my analogy is false. Alfred, I did not introduce these restrictions. They (fairly) faithfully capture the current state of commodity software. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
