At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:24:19 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:29 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:29:28 +0200, > > Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2) If someone implements [confinement] will it be integrated in the Hurd, > > > even > > > if disabled by default? > > > > This doesn't even make sense if the issue were not contentious. > > I believe that Pierre is asking "If someone implements it, will the Hurd > designers reject integrating it because of politics?" (Please note: > Marcus himself described this as a decision motivated by the politics of > ownership). > > I think this is a perfectly legitimate question. What is your response?
You said in another mail: > I do not believe that > true confinement can be added to the system later in any practical > sense. Architecting it out is, for all practical purposes, banning it. I said, many times now, that I do not know a legitimate use case that is relevant to the GNU Hurd. I have put up a challenge to find one. Assuming that no legitimate use case is found, and that you are right that introducing this feature means a fundamental shift in the over-all system design, then the answer is clearly that the patch would be rejected for technical reasons, independent of any political evaluation. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
