North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Bell Labs or Microsoft security?
- From: Daniel Karrenberg
- Date: Wed Jan 29 19:11:35 2003
On 29.01 03:32, Sean Donelan wrote:
> ... Multics security. Bell Labs answer: Unix. Who needs all that "extra"
> security junk in Multics. .........
[reader warning: diatribe following]
Gee, there once were a handflul of people;
their principle goal was to make an OS for their own use.
They did it in such a way that it could be developed by its users while
they used it. Creeping featurism was held down successfully, at least
initially ;-(. It ran on platforms orders of magnitude cheaper than
what Multics ran on at the time. It taught a lot of people about
programming style. I hope I learned some things from it. And they
wrote up the shortcomings of the security architecture concisely at the
time this began to matter. They understood stuff that M$ with its
"creeping featurism", "low support cost defaults", "undocumented API of the week"
cannot possibly begin grok and deal with because of ETOOBIG.
Now you and I use it because it does the job better than anything else.
Then you blame them for not designing in today's requirements 30
(not 20!) years ago. Give them a break ...
PS: Worm? Virus? Who wrote this up concisely first?
PPS: Plan 9 anyone?