By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), June 30, 2022 1:00 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on June 30, 2022 8:28 am wrote:
> Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on June 30, 2022 5:36 am wrote:
> > Kester L (nobody.delete@this.nothing.com) on June 29, 2022 1:49 pm wrote:
> > > https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3534854
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your thoughts on this article? I was under the impression that a lot of the 80s attempts
> > > at capability machines (or really, anything that wasn't trying to be a glorified PDP-11)
> > > floundered because of performance and cost issues (i.e. the Intel i432).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > There are some valid points in the article (and I also have a very good opinion of much
> > of the past work of PHK), but as others have also noted, some of the article is confusing,
> > especially the phrase "The linear address space as a concept is unsafe at any speed",
> > where it is not at all clear what is meant, before reading all the article.
>
> People are taking the "unsafe at any speed" way too literally.
> Probably most of the people on this forum are way too young to appreciate that this is a reference to:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
>
Well... You, I suppose, is also too young. But somehow you know.
The author of the article is certainly too young, but he knows too.
May be, more a matter of cultural background than of age?
> "Politically" it's probably a poor choice of phrase in that, while Nader's book had substantial
> political impact, as is usual with such books, opponents found enough technical complaints with
> the content that the argument frequently devolved into screaming matches about those technical
> details rather than about whether the larger picture was or was not valid; and any reference to
> the book is now immediately considered a political act (ie you are for or against big business).
> Adrian (a.delete@this.acm.org) on June 30, 2022 5:36 am wrote:
> > Kester L (nobody.delete@this.nothing.com) on June 29, 2022 1:49 pm wrote:
> > > https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3534854
> > >
> > >
> > > The linear address space as a concept is unsafe at any speed, and it badly needs mandatory CHERI
> > > seat belts. But even better would be to get rid of linear address spaces entirely and go back to
> > > the future, as successfully implemented in the Rational R1000 computer 30-plus years ago.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your thoughts on this article? I was under the impression that a lot of the 80s attempts
> > > at capability machines (or really, anything that wasn't trying to be a glorified PDP-11)
> > > floundered because of performance and cost issues (i.e. the Intel i432).
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > There are some valid points in the article (and I also have a very good opinion of much
> > of the past work of PHK), but as others have also noted, some of the article is confusing,
> > especially the phrase "The linear address space as a concept is unsafe at any speed",
> > where it is not at all clear what is meant, before reading all the article.
>
> People are taking the "unsafe at any speed" way too literally.
> Probably most of the people on this forum are way too young to appreciate that this is a reference to:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
>
Well... You, I suppose, is also too young. But somehow you know.
The author of the article is certainly too young, but he knows too.
May be, more a matter of cultural background than of age?
> "Politically" it's probably a poor choice of phrase in that, while Nader's book had substantial
> political impact, as is usual with such books, opponents found enough technical complaints with
> the content that the argument frequently devolved into screaming matches about those technical
> details rather than about whether the larger picture was or was not valid; and any reference to
> the book is now immediately considered a political act (ie you are for or against big business).