[cap-talk] Security and languages talk

[David-Sarah Hopwood]

zooko wrote:
> On May 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Ivan Krstić wrote:
> 
>> * If this was your first brush with the relevant topics, what could
>>    I say that would really pique your interest?
> 
> One interpretation of the resurgence of capability theory in the last  
> decade is this:
> 
> For a long time, capability theorists tried to persuade security  
> theorists:  "Hey, you guys really messed up, made some basic factual  
> errors about capabilities in the 70's, and then you all built careers  
> out of inventing alternatives to capabilities which alternatives, it  
> turns out, aren't necessary.".
> 
> For some reason, this didn't go over very well, e.g. [1].

Let's be clear, though: this view was and is correct. And not only are
the alternatives unnecessary; more importantly, they don't work.

I agree that this may not be the best way to "sell" capability systems
in the short term, but eventually the history will be rewritten, and it
will include our point of view about these errors made in the 1970s. It's
just a matter of time.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood