Hello Glynn,
This subject spilled over from another Sig I get SVLUG which are
mostly guys involved in business end use of computers. For some reason it
de-generated into an argument over whether unix is useful in a business.
Since I have friends in a very large business called banks, I asked him
what kind of computers they use for funds transfer. He had to find the
right guy to ask, and it turns out they use 100% redundant unix machines.
I think most Sun Workstations run the Sun unix. My son has a small
business with 15 people to pay. He bought business software to take care
of the employee pay and taxes ect. I recall it cost $5,000.00 and it has
the VMS style business permission's setup and it seems to do his job fine.
The Sun computer lives in the main lab room with about $350,000.00
worth of instruments. Paco has put in an expensive theft system I will not
talk about. But it is not easy for a computer expert to reach this
computer. So I think the VMS system is good but is still available for
unix computers in business software. If you have good phyisical saftey...
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Glynn Clements wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Well, you get the picture.
> > >
> > > This is the kind of fine-grain control that mini/mainframe programmers
> > > are griping about when they say that Unix is unsuited for commercial
> > > applications, rather than a lack of flashy spreadsheets.
> > >
> > > However, Unix never made the claims seen in my .sig: (yup, those
> > > are straight quotes, in their proper context).
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for information. But about the conclusion that Unix
> > is't unsuited for commercial application I think is a bit more to talk:
> >
> > I think it is perfect to have this possibility to set control
> > on a part of a file, but I think those can't be part of operating system
> > while we talk about a large ussable OS. Let me said what I understood then
> > show me if I wrong:
> > A posibility to set access rights to parts of a file.
> > I.e some user should be allowed to read from offset n*0 .. n*100,
> > some users to be allowed to write to offsets n*101 .. n*250 etc.
> > But what will happend if other database engine use text entrys with
> > variable size record? Will be forced to say: Only fixed records databases
> > are allowed on that OS?
> > Or may need an software tools wich scan for record to be read and verify
> > where it is second field on ther record and look for access rights.
> > Should be possible, but I think this tosls must be part of database
> > engine not on the OS kernel.
> > On an mainframe with a proprietary OS and wich use only one database
> > engine, they can implement as kernel part some security tools, but for
> > an OS ussable for everything ....... I think that job can't be performed
> > by the OS.
> >
> > Did I wrong with something?
>
> Well, it can be performed by the OS; however, it's debatable whether
> it should be.
>
> Unix's I/O model treats everything as a sequence of bytes, with either
> random access (files and block devices) or sequential access
> (character devices, pipes and sockets). The OS doesn't have any notion
> of fields, records etc.
>
> This has a certain elegance, providing uniformity and simplicity, and
> enabling you to do a lot of different things with a small set of
> standard tools.
>
> Unix's permission mechanism wasn't intended to cover all conceivable
> scenarios, but to provide sufficient primitives to allow arbitrary
> access control mechanisms to be built.
>
> For anything more involved than the standard file permissions, a
> `universal loophole' is provided by the setuid/setgid mechanism. You
> make the data accessible only to some privileged user (or group), and
> then implement your access control mechanism in the application.
>
> So, it's basically a toss-up between features or simplicity. Judging
> by the longevity of Unix, it would seem that simplicity wins.
>
> --
> Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Best wishes
- Karl F. Larsen, 3310 East Street, Las Cruces,NM (505) 524-3303 -
