Re: Linux Kernel Security - Can it ever be 100%
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:29:29 -0800
Tom <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:04:22PM +0800, David Palmer. wrote:
> > For a start, please allow me to refer you to Emmanuel Kant with
> > reference to 'a priori.'
> 'a priori' means you know how to do it independent of experience.
> But I'm like Alice: when I used a word it means what I mean it to
This perception may have application in some forms of modern art, the
type that believes that communication is superfluous.
> In this context: when my job is to find Billy Joe Bob's phone bill,
> 99% of the stuff that happens in a computer is unnecessary, *if* the
> computer was built that one and only thing. Just keep "defining the
> problem down".
And this appears to have no logical correlation at all.
View this as an assessment, as judgement is not a process that I indulge
You don't need privilege levels if there are no
With reference to the security aspect, perhaps you are used to viewing a
situation through only the one set of paradigms. This is a totally
different environment to what you are used to. Prepare for a paradigm
There are levels here, but they aren't really associated with the normal
concept of 'privilege.' It's like any other community, you establish
your own level within the community in the way in which you conduct
Now, let's see:
You walked into town and carried on like some kind of attention deficit;
insulted one of the developers simply because he expressed amazement at
your pseudointellectual, pyrotechnical behaviour;
derided the perceptions of anybody that did not agree with yours' in the
manner of an inferiority complex the size of your average postage stamp
I could go on, but I think the scenario is established.
I think as far as being on the level of an arsehole goes, you'd be
looking up, Alice.