🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2018-02-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2018 14:19:17 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 6:32:06 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> that doesn't prevent "bad bits" from occupying the machine.  I would
>>>> think that a goal should be to prevent this; so the slow machine or
>>>> slow core would be in the box which passes bits to the real machine.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you're saying that the router is the best place for a security
>>measure.
>>
>>To keep the kids from tracking in filth, you have them take their boots
>>off before they get into the house.  Same principle is true with
>>computer bits and bytes.
>>>
>>> It certainly does make sense to stop threats at a level that is as high
>>> upstream as possible.
>>
>>This isn't necessarily upstream; it could be a hub.
>>>
>>> However, what I'm talking about is bits that... we don't know whether or not
>>> they're bad.
>>
>>That's defined by usage and the intent of the user.  My bad bits are your
>>good bits and visa versa.  Scott's usage of his bits is going to be
>>"scarier" than a mundane user like me because his usage is stuff
>>which has "never been before".  I used to do the same kind of work; everyone
>>in my group had POKE privs which allowed patching the running monitor if
>>we wished to do so.
>>
>>>
>>> A lot of web pages have JavaScript. That lets the web page include a little
>>> program that runs on your computer. Normally, this is for legitimate
>>purposes,
>>> like letting web forms be a little fancier without overloading the server.
>>
>>This is an abmonination.  If code has to be run in order to display
>>a web page which a user has requested, that web page should be built
>>on the "dirty" computer and then pushed to the user's system.
>>
>>The problem we're having is that noone, especially the operating
>>systems, keeps the user actions separated from system actions.  There
>>should have been a strict wall between the two functionalities.
>>TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 got this right via the UUO interface.  Unix and
>>MSoft's developers, over the years, got lazy while writing new code
>>and didn't keep a strict wall between the two. 
>
> I think you will find that the opposite has occurred.  Early PCs
> didn't even have the means to enforce such a wall.  Now modern
> operating systems run just about everything in userspace at some level
> of virtualization.

Correct. 286 had protected mode, but almost no OS used it...

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...