Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On 25-May-02 08:58:26 Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
WV> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
>> > I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin
>> > to limit the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous.
>> I really get mad when I hear that the sysadmin owns the machine and
>> pays for its used resources.
WV> Remember that every story has two sides.
WV> If a sysadmin allows too many freedoms to a user, you're likely
WV> to end up in big problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the design goal of the Hurd such that
it allows freedoms via isolation?
Meaning I can create my own little world and allow who ever I want to
enter and I can even limit what all they can do in my world. And they in
turn can do the same with their world.
I'm protected from screwing around with the hurd core via servers. The
servers being the insulation that if they or one of them fails the core
keeps on keeping on and I can just start up another instance of the
The hurd core being the existance that allows things/worlds to exist in
it's (the Hurd) existance. You can mess around in your world, and in other
worlds to the extent you've been allowed by the owners of those worlds,
even distroy them if so given the power and desire to do so. But you
cannot mess with existance itself.
Being able to make custom worlds means that it is harder for someone to
make a generic attack on many worlds.
As for the "commons" resources, if you want to alter something you have to
make a copy of it and placed in your world.
Sysadmin main task is maintaining and upgrading existance so that all
which exist in existance works better or has the option of.
Everyone knows the only completely secure system is one that can't be
altered at all. But that is not the design goal of the Hurd, rather it is
a design goal of core, worlds and common resource isolation so as to
provide stability of existance while allowing differing worlds to co-exist
to the level of security as desired by world owners/creators. While in all
of this allowing a sharing of values between the worlds.
Let's say there is one world called "teamwork" where the work of many
coders is copied/collected and processed for a team goal. Lets' further
say that one person turns bad and causes the teamwork world to collapse
and turn into a black hole. Due to the isolation, the black hole can only
vainish the teamwork world, not the worlds and their works that
contributed to it.
Recreating the teamwork world without the blackhole seed is as easy as
again collecting contribution copies from the many worlds, minus the seed
world or black hole seed in that world.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Email @ mailto:email@example.com
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com