[openbeos] Re: status of OpenBeOS
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 16:50:33 +0200 CEST
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.
Other related posts:
