Re: Child killing UI (was Re: Reliability of RPC services)

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 28/04/2006 hora 11:34:
> > Yeah, but as I said, in some systems that encapsulation is obviously
> > broken.
> So you are suggesting we should build a broken system, because others
> have done so as well?  I don't think I like that approach. ;-)

I said I'm not so sure we break encapsulation here. If you consider that
spawning a process is clearly an action you ask the outside world (like
it is in POSIX), then it's not breaking encapsulation.

In Coyotos and HurdNG, where spawning a process could be no more than
giving some of your own resources ot something you start yourself, then
it would break encapsulation.

It's a matter of paradigm and semantic.

> For example, I think it is likely that a user's session manager will
> not allow listing of its processes (at least not to anyone except the
> user).  That means that others (including the system administrator)
> cannot see what programs the user is running. And that's a good thing,
> privacy-wise.

I agree. I don't want my mom, connected with SSH to her account on my
system, know I'm executing 'xine ~/Porn/hotbabes.mpg' or a friend of
mine, connected as I am on a GNU's or Debian's infrastructure's system,
know I'm executing 'gvim software-patents-directive-take2.tex'. ;-)

That has always bothered me, when I'm doing some distant administration
work on someone else's system, to see what he is doing when I do some
top or ps.

Privately,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature