[cap-talk] Another "core" principle - virtualize capabilities

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Hi Jed,

you have said three mails ago:

  "All I'm arguing for is the ability to standardize the
  object-capability model sufficiently to map from one system to
  another - e.g. along the lines of the DCCS.  Any such general
  mapping will automatically provide the needed standard and "smooth
  out" any nuances between the systems, provided that the systems were
  designed with virtualizable capabilities only.  If they aren't then
  I regard their design as unwise - both from the perspective of
  remote mapping and from the perspective of many other "wrapping"
  mechanisms that we've discussed like membranes and delegation with
  responsibility tracking."

Either I completely misunderstood what you wrote above (maybe you can
clarify), or you have now admitted in several ways that this is wrong.
Systems can not be designed with "virtualizable capabilities only",
and there is no "general mapping" that "will automatically provide the
needed standard and smooth out any nuances between the systems."  That
was my whole point.  A system built on one set of mechanisms may
require significant structural changes to run on another set of
mechanisms according to its specification.

With regards to your performance claims, they are not helpful because
you don't say what constitutes a "significant performance loss" for
you and your optimism seems to come from additional design
constraints, for example being able to move certain services into the
kernel, which are not generally applicable.

I will reply to some technical notes in a separate note, without
digging harder on this main point.

Thanks,
Marcus