Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>>>> On 03 Apr 2003 09:08:33 +0200, Ketil Malde ("Ketil") writes:
> Ketil> More specific question: how is security achieved, when
> everything's Ketil> open, and communciation is done through
> unrestricted, shared objects? Ketil> The reasons given doesn't sound
> very convincing, looking from a Ketil> malicious user perspective.
> It's a single-user system and there is no protecting the user from
> himself, if he decides to be self-malicious.
System protections aren't there for users. They are there to protect
various resources from *programs*. Users may or may not be somewhere
behind some program that happened to call a chain of dozen others, but
that has nothing to do with things. Neither has this hypothetical
creature's intentions. It's all about programs for any system.
 No, you never protect. You just allow. What is not allowed
(=implemented) is impossible. There is no concept "protect".