From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,de4046858a88bacb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Ada OS Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:56:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1l4ztkj1ln9ir.q8bsxgivkl7a.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Dec 2007 22:56:37 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 1c5357bb.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=8a7HfT31:PMj7E:bke<5HFA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA4nDHegD_]RE0<3O8]aJKJ@DNcfSJ;bb[EIRnRBaCdXSAhb@7Lk@>C_PXiJ X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19029 Date: 2007-12-26T22:56:37+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:56:04 +0600, I. Levashew wrote: > Paul wrote: > >> OpenBSD values security, correctness and standardization, all of which I >> see in Ada. > > Well, security is currently something fashionable. Nobody wants to be > the one not concious about security. But Ada isn't being mentioned more > often. I had impression that it's a good show business to be > security-concious. Under "security" a marketing guy understands making secure something which is not. They sell solutions for problems. The software which is secure by its nature has no market, obviously. You can't sell a medical ventilator to people who can breathe. First they must be ill, badly ill... > in their programs. Security measures such as SELinux, chroot, > Capabilities, etc. can only be secondary layers of prevention, not the > primary one. Right, a lid to seal the compost-bin... > God in the details. Each detail matters. That's why next-generation OS > must be written in Ada, but it's neither the least nor the most > meaningful detail. I think that Ada still lacks some important features. Concerning security and OS design the problem with Ada is that it has a trusted model of interaction between components. You can do a lot of unchecked stuff. The model of access rights is very primitive (visible - private). In short, there will be needed a level of OS API *outside* the language to protect objects and methods of. That wouldn't be a truly modern OS, as Unix was when it started to use a higher-level language in its design. To be modern now means that the very language should be able to deliver protection (and some other things, like distribution, persistence, heterogeneity). -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de