Re: Hurd Advocacy?
> >> The tool set is around the corner and platform independant, but IPC is the
> >> third user interface (CLI and GUI being the first two) that allows
> >> "putting things together".
>
> >OS design is still complex engineering task. In the future, users may
> >be able to drag and drop modules, filesystems and other resources in a
> >nice flashy GUI environment (why not?), and they are also free to
> >shoot themselves in the foot. Multiple times. With a machine gun...
> >After all, it's all about user freedom. Nah, just kidding :-))
>
> Be very careful how you treat the users, least you be preceived as an
> arrogant fool if not also ignorant. And that would result in less
> effective advocacy from you, for the hurd..
Hey, I was joking here :) A user-friendly interface to OS resources
and management doesn't have to be limited to the Hurd. Many other
OSes could need such a thing as well.
The problem I'm having with this is very simple: You've got to
implement the basic underlying functionality before you can even
think of wrapping it in a nice GUI.
If a project decided to implement such an interface for, say, Linux,
it would be easy for them to extend it to support Hurd specific
features as well. There is nothing in the Hurd that prevents this and
in fact, I'd like to see this done. But, it is not part of the core
itself, it is an add-on application.
On a very general level, you're absolutely right: If our aim were
to attract absolute newbies (read: Windoze users), an user-friendly
and fool-proof interface to the OS is a must. If at all possible,
this interface should be optional, so as not to block access to
the regular command line interface (there's nothing worse than being
locked behind an nich flashy interface when you can't access more
powerful features).
Such an interface could run in newbie, advanced and wizard modes,
allowing less, more and absolute control over the resources that
are being managed by the user, depending on their skills level.
But let's repeat this again: it is not Hurd-specific at all.
If there is an X application which does this, let's port it :)
> Like I said, I see the job security issue, just as such Roman numeral
> "expertise" was there to stall out for 300 hundred years the integration
> of the much easier and power hindu-arabic decimal system, so are there
> those today who persist in preventing the needed changes in computing
> that will provide the users with all three primary colors along with the
> simple tool set that will allow them to better grasp the know how and do
> with putting things together.
This has nothing to do with job security. We're not getting paid
for developing open source or free software. It just happens that
this is the kind of user interface we are accustomed to and which
helps us being more productive. There's absolutely nothing that
prevents you from implementing or using a different system or
interface.
> Likewise, the fiction of a computer running a starship or even allowing a
> child to program a complex holodeck like program, given todays programming
> methology and elitism of expertise, these levels of programming will not
> be reachable.
Again, this is not Hurd-specific. Even a complex holodeck program
would still be multi-layered, with a basic OS at the bottom and
multiple layers of user-interfaces stacked on top of it.
> >> How secure would something like AROS be, when running on the Hurd?
>
> >How do you define "secure"?
>
> Locks are for honest people, and we can break what we make.
>
> Security as I define it is as the analogies I used of car keys and credit
> cards, it is my physical possession of them that provides me with their
> security. But security works both ways when dealing with a multi-user
> system. Secure in the manner of preventing the user from tampering with
> the functions that serve everyone as well as preventing others from
> tampering with other peoples things, without permission.
Security in kernelized systems is achieved through hierarchy.
The most basic level of security is implemented by the uKernel itself,
since it is the only one that accesses the bare metal hardware. The
kernel hands out resources according to a specific policy. An OS
that runs on top takes care of creating compartimentized (virtualized)
environments in which applications can run, without interfering with
each other.
The Hurd provides the same security protection that other POSIX systems,
including Linux, BSD, etc... If AROS runs as a user-level application
in the Hurd, it will be as secure as other user-level applications.
If it runs as a task (or set of tasks) directly on top of the microkernel
(Mach, L4, ...), it will be even more isolated from other tasks, including
Hurd tasks.
> Timothy Rue (3seas)
> Email@ mailto:timrue@mindspring.com
> WEB@ http://threeseas.net
> VIC@ http://freshmeat.net/projects/victor1
--
Farid Hajji. http://www.farid-hajji.net/address.html
Reply to: