|
From: | Tom Bachmann |
Subject: | Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement |
Date: | Mon, 01 May 2006 17:09:57 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060403) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > Trivial confinement is profoundly > (and deliberately) weaker. This may actually be good for Marcus's > objectives, but it seems useful to understand precisely what is being > lost technically, and what impact this may have in practice. > > So I will start a new thread for this first. > This is great. I'd like to say that all this discussion has been extremely confusing. I tried to sketch it a bit at http://hurd.gnufans.org/bin/view/Hurd/HowMuchConfinementDoWeWant. - -- - -ness- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEViTFvD/ijq9JWhsRAio8AJ4/6nRVHGcHy02JGg5q58tCFKYhDACfYjx/ wI/zvvOYxuK/QJeFu8mppWQ= =A72l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |