From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <5d375e920710281143m5733e766xce46826611a7adf4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4724B007.6090908@gmail.com>
	<a510ec445fbd9ebbf2b8c22eae777dcc@9netics.com>
	<5d375e920710281143m5733e766xce46826611a7adf4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <875210C0-4D03-4599-B573-DDFB38B9C32A@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp
Subject: Re: [9fans] security
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:48:12 +0900
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dda17dd2-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I vote to Uriel.

On 2007/10/29, at 3:43, Uriel wrote:
>
> I'm still wondering what is the cost of having path be (/bin .) (other
> than running scripts actually becoming much faster when access to . is
> slow).
>
> For once I'm with don, just because perfect security is impossible
> doesn't mean we should stop trying to get closer to it, specially when
> the cost (as far as anyone has been able to tell in this case) is
> negligible.
>
> What is next? we get rid of file permissions 'because your coworkers
> can already pick the pile of papers lying on your desk so you should
> trust them anyway.
>
> Seeing this kinds of arguments is quite sad, specially given how far
> ahead plan9 is from every other system when it comes to *real*
> *practical* security.
>
> And I'm an idiot, but this whole discussion has become quite stupid.
>
> uriel