Hello Ken, On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0400, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >You shouldn't contradict the design of the expected environment > >for your product. > > So you're advocating doing nothing because of some design decisions made > 30+ years ago? My experience has shown me that it's possible to do better;
I do not advocate doing nothing :) I advocate being reasonable. If you (just as a hypothetical example) prefer PAG to clean design - fine, but then do not call the resulting system secure, as you broke the assumptions on which the semantics of the system call set was designed (and still relies on). > I see no reason the design can't evolve to meet new requirements. You The design can evolve given that the changes are compatible. With a complex design it is hard to do the analysis, and a negative conclusion usually is more reliable than a positive one. > might point out that the design hasn't evolved yet; that would be fair, > but if we don't try stuff now we won't find what works and what doesn't. So I am helping the evolution by pointing out which things don't :) Many people seem to believe that PAGs are "right" and that all we need is a suitable implementation which will make it work. My point is that this is not exactly the case and that there are other, more general hinders as well. Best regards, Rune _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
