François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote: > En réponse à Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > I do want to have an as secure (multi-user) OS as possible given > > the > > constraints set by the BeOS compatibility (I could probably live > > with > > letting some apps break). > So do I, that's why I intend to set up a compile farm (with one box > :p) > so I can setup one user per project and see how it fits with a gui > user. > Need first to make sure my data are safe and send this hdd to RMA > Axel where are you ? :) At least not too far away, although I don't know what you mean 8-) > > No, Windows isn't that bad with it (the NT line, of course); it is > > pretty secure - and it's kernel is very similar to ours (in many > > design > > decisions), so I hope we can borrow some concepts from there. > > Of course, if there is room for improvement, we should make use out > > of > > it. > Please don't include .NET in the kernel :) We also don't have our app_server in the kernel, like NT has. But that alone doesn't make Windows bad (there is plenty of other stuff that achieves this). > I'd go for adding a permissions byte to ports, areas and sems... > just good old Unix semantics, with a umask-like variable > to set default behaviour. > (a correctly implemented umask... R5 implements it in libroot > currently, > so fork doesn't inherit it :^) Nice, didn't know that :-)) I hope you can live without this feature for OpenBeOS ;-) Adios... Axel.