[cap-talk] Polaris: Virus Safe Computing for Windows XP

[David Hopwood]

Jed Donnelley wrote:
> At 09:57 PM 12/9/2004, David Hopwood wrote:
> 
>> Jed at Webstart wrote:
>>> "By properly distinguishing authority from permission, Polaris 
>>> doesn't leave any dangling permissions to be cleaned up later."
>>> from the Polaris paper.
>>
>> That's not a particularly good way of expressing it: there's no general
>> principle that says authority should be indirect. In context, it would
>> be sufficient to say
>>
>>   "By using this approach Polaris does not leave any dangling permissions
>>    to be cleaned up later."
> 
> I'd certainly be happier with the above.  However, if I'm understanding 
> their other writing it is exactly the indirectness that turns "permission"
> into "authority".

Arrgh, ambiguous reading. I meant:
   "there's no general principle that says it is *desirable* for authority
    to be indirect",
not
   "there's no definition that says that authority is not necessarily
    direct".

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>