|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| - | Are you sure, Dmbarbour? | + | Are you sure? |
| | | | |
| - | May I suggest you
| + | [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 15:13, 10 July 2009 (CDT) |
| - | * first to read [http://www.erights.org/talks/thesis/ Mark Miller's thesis]
| + | |
| - | * then install E
| + | |
| - | * read E in a [[Walnut]] and experiment with E
| + | |
| - | If you like it, join e-lang or cap-talk mailing list and discuss your ideas.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 15:17, 10 July 2009 (CDT) | + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I have read Mark Miller's thesis, many years ago. And I played with '''E language''' then, too. I've gained more than a few inspirations from these, but I'm not all that fond of the language (in particular, how it handles distribution, disruption, resilience, persistence, concurrency, consistency, facets, and I'm not impressed with available optimizations achievable).
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Anyhow, I can only express my professional opinion on what [[object capability]] means based on the literature I have read, same as Mark Miller or anyone else, and take comfort in the fact that formal definitions are graded by '''utility in making distinctions''' rather than by their conformance with the opinions of others. You ask if I'm "sure"? I'm very certain of the utility in understanding [[object capability]] as distinct from other capabilities, and I'm very certain of the utility in understanding [[capability]] as distinct from '''secure''' capability, such that one can meaningfully discusss the security '''of''' capabilities rather than just security '''with''' capabilities. So, in that sense, I'm sure.
| + | |
| - | -- [[User:Dmbarbour|Dmbarbour]] 16:15, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | -------
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Upon seeing you 'rewrite' my professional opinion on the matter with your own, it is clear to me that you would prefer to maintain and grow this wiki on your own rather than risk dissenting opinions. I'll leave you alone now. But, before I go, May I suggest that you read some capability literature that ''wasn't'' written by Mark Miller? There's a lot of it out there.
| + | |
| - | -- [[User:Dmbarbour|Dmbarbour]] 16:23, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I think [http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk cap-talk] would be a better place for expressing your professional opinion. Join under your real name.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 16:30, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Kosik: I think your "complete rewrite" was unnecessarily antagonistic. Please prefer gradual improvements ''and discussion'' to discarding others' work, unless it is complete nonsense, which this wasn't. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 19:37, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I propose first discussion of the [[ambient capability]] article and if it is settled, let us discuss other things (like [[object capability]]). Sequentially. Is that fair? [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 01:34, 11 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ----
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I've just deleted this page. This term is not formally defined anywhere in the object-capability security literature as far as I'm aware. It does not need a separate definition. It's better to define the object-capability model IMO and redirect to that page if it is really felt necessary to have a page on this wiki called "object capability".
| + | |
| - | --[[User:Toby.murray|Toby.murray]] 07:48, 13 July 2009 (CDT)
| + | |
