Re: Conservation Laws, Money, Engines, and Ontology

[Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>]

	Tim raises some interesting points, I'd like to focus in on
one small section, that of controlling what software runs on a
machine.

	I have no issue with a user choosing the software that runs,
but lets consider the Microsoft CAPI model.  In it, there is control
over what runs, but it exists at the vendor level.  This is moving
away from the personal computer, and back to the timeshare model,
where control over what you run is partially in the hands of the
vendor.  Giving up this control of your computer is a step in a
dangerous direction.

	However, creating 'execution kernels' with cryptographic
authentication and resource controls is something that would be very
useful in a number of places.  Tim's selling of CPU cycles, stamps and
the like dovetails with something I wrote last December
(www.homeport.org/~adam/java.html) on the need for granular controls
in Java execution.

	So, I'm in agreement that we need resource allocation
controls, and I want to stress the need for those controls to be
configured by the owner of the computer, not the author of an
operating system, or by government policies.

	When they buy me a computer, they can decide what runs on it.

Adam


Timothy C. May wrote:

| Now, certainly I support the right of any person or machine to run programs
| freely and without charge, to pass on e-mail free of charge, to run
| remailers for no charge, to accept spam mail without complaint, and so on.
| 
| What I'm suggesting is that many of the problems being seen with overuse of
| resources, spam, congestion, and denial of service are really due to a poor
| model of resource allocation. Unix and other modern operating systems offer
| various tools for helping to constrain such problems, but, I submit, better
| methods are needed.

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume