Re: Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?)

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

Let me elaborate instead, since Jonathan has comprehension
difficulties

   >    I don't see a way to start with POSIX and then improve it from
   >    there.  POSIX has inherent insecurities built in.  There are
   >    not many, but [...]
   > 
   > So simply ignore those insecuritites.

   Oh yes. That has worked *so* well for Microsoft.

But not _adding_ those insecuritites, 90% of POSIX is damn good, and
has nothing to do with security, and is merly a API for writting
portable programs.  The remaining 10% have to do with some bits of
security, uid's and file permissions.  These bits can be _ignored_ and
something different implemented on instead.  Just like not
implementing chroot(), and using something different that is secure.

But you knew that and had to start a flame instead, and make absurd
claims that all of POSIX is inherently insecure, when in reality it
the majority of POSIX is totally irrelevant to implementing a secure
operating system.