Re: Supporting POSIX *users*

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   > Who do you kick in the ass if you let anyone use your console?
   > The system admin, or the person who left the console open?

   In the real world: The system admin. The person who left the
   console open is probably someone whose continued good will matters
   to you.

In the fantasy world where I live, the user gets a kick in the ass.
Infact, I still have an imprint, and it was cause the system admin
didn't like me leaving the console open for all to use.

   Today it is the fault of the system architect, whose crappy system
   design made this inevitable. It cannot be the user's fault, since
   they had no authority or ability to alter circumstances.
   Responsibility follows from authority.

No, it is the fault of the user.  Take a capability based system, I
give all programs the same capabilities, so it works like it does on a
normal system, who is at fault?  The system architect for giving the
user the ability to set the capabilities?

   We know today that 100% of all software is insecure.

If that is true, then EROS/Coyotos also must be unsecure, and all your
arguments that it is possible to make secure software are false.

   What happens to your analogy when (a) there is exists only bad oil
   in the world, (b) you need to get your kid to a hospital, and (c)
   the auto vendor has designed an automobile that requires perfect
   oil but converts better oil into bad oil before using it? Yes, in
   the face of point (c) I would blame the car manufacturer, because
   they have made it impossible for me to act sensibly. The design is
   defective.

If you put artifical restrictions like that, then you can make
anything work as you want.  A is false, since there exists `perfect'
oil in the world (C is also false for the record) so your whole
version of my analogy is false.