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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd3b8571c28b75f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-29 03:46:41 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software
Date: 29 Aug 2003 05:46:38 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <rU6VU7+ub$nA@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: 
 <3F44BC65.4020203@noplace.com><20030822005323.2ff66948.david@realityrift.com><vkc1b.26226$Cd2.21231@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <20030822020403.625ffbf5.david@realityrift.com>
 <Mkd1b.20040$N37.9078@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F4657AD.1040908@attbi.com>
 <Prv1b.3720$PJ2.319043@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <e2e5731a.0308221829.3d16a7b@posting.google.com> <3F4828D9.8050700@attbi.com>
 <bRv3b.692$c12.9302@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <3F4EA616.30607@attbi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1062153916 16223 192.135.80.34 (29 Aug 2003
 10:45:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:45:16 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41939
Date: 2003-08-29T05:46:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3F4EA616.30607@attbi.com>, "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> writes:

> The point though, is that you don't open a file and read it record by 
> record or line by line.  You map a segment into your process and can 
> address any bit in the segment at random.

> This was the paradox of Multics that most people never understood.  The 
> system could afford to have good security because compared to 
> conventional OSes security checks--and all of the other overhead of 
> accessing a file--only needed to be done maybe one-thousandth as often, 
> if that.

That sounds true for unrestricted access, but the number of occasions
for checks should have to be the same as any other operating system for
data protected as "single writer at a time".