Re: Capabilities by any other name Ka-Ping Yee (ping@lfw.org)
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:45:12 -0800 (PST)

Jonathan Shapiro wrote:
> I think I wrote confusingly. I meant that most of the serious security
> community uses the term "capability" as it is used in this list, which has
> nothing to do with the way POSIX misuses the term. This community is a
> critical constituent for building popular credibility, and switching terms
> would lose them.

Douglas Crockford wrote:
>
> I hear some of those guys are pretty smart. I think they could keep up if
> your terminology is clear.
>
> "Death Before Confusion!"

Better yet, why don't we just get all of them in on this particular terminology discussion too, so we can just agree on a term (whether that be "capability", some other word plus "capability", or something different entirely) and all be in sync?

Here are some terms i would be comfortable with: 

    "capabilities"
    "capability pointers"
    "capability keys"
    "object keys"
    "object capability security"
    "object-based security"

"The only `intuitive' interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned."