Re: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is , the question)

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
26 Jan 1999 02:10:32 -0800

In article <linux.kernel.36AC84C7.26595942@luz.fe.uni-lj.si>,
Andrej Presern <andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si> wrote:
>david parsons wrote:
>> One of the nice strengths of Unix is that it's basically an ad-hoc
>> system, blissfully free of some of the worst excesses of industry and
>> academia.
>
>One of the ugly weaknesses of Unix is that because it's basically an ad
>hoc system, it suffers from numerous, overly complex, inefficient and
>often inadequate security mechanisms (which themselves are ad hoc
>answers to security problems with other ad hoc solutions).

If you're talking kernel security, I'll have to ask you to detail
these security problems. If you're talking _application_ security,
that's not a problem of the kernel (and can be dealt with by the
simple expedient of spending a few man years writing your own
userland.)

If legacy userland security is the BIG ISSUE that makes Linux
obsolete, Linux is not obsolete.

____
david parsons \bi/ I prefer working code to theoretical masterworks.
\/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/