Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <tony@...>
Cc: <ttw+bsd@...>, 'Darren Spruell' <phatbuckett@...>, <misc@...>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:26 pm

> Burroughs Computers essentially went out of business because their
> computers refused to do illegal operations while IBM's computers
> very happily did all sorts of illegal stuff.

Way off topic here... Burroughs became part of Unisys and the
architecture that "refused to do illegal operations" still exists
in products sold today. Well, its emulated on intel hardware
these days, so perhaps that doesn't count.

I miss coding in algol :-)

// marc

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Can E. Acar, (Mon Sep 24, 2:49 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, (Mon Sep 24, 4:52 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, , (Mon Sep 24, 4:13 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Luke Bakken, (Mon Sep 24, 5:28 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, , (Mon Sep 24, 8:40 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Darren Spruell, (Mon Sep 24, 4:48 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, , (Mon Sep 24, 8:34 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Tony Abernethy, (Mon Sep 24, 9:06 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux , Marco S Hyman, (Mon Sep 24, 11:26 pm)
Re: OBSD's perspective on SELinux, Todd Alan Smith, (Mon Sep 24, 9:32 pm)