Re: is KERNEL developement finished, yet ???

[torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)]

In article <000901c29c5d$6d194760$2e833841@joe>,
Joseph D. Wagner <wagnerjd@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Unix (and Linux) developers are far too concerned with clinging to the
>30-year-old outdated POSIX standard, which creates numerous problems when
>trying to advance new features.

No.

Only stupid people think they should throw away old proven concepts. 
What happens quite often in academia in particular is that you find a
problem you want to fix, and you re-design the whole system around your
fix. 

This is how we get crap like microkernels.  They have "an agenda", and
that's the _worst_ thing you can have when designing software.  You
fixate on some perceived problem, and the end result is that yes, maybe
you fixed _that_ problem, but in the meantime you also generated a whole
new of issues - usually things that were solved by the original
approach. 

The UNIX/Linux approach is a very pragmatic thing - leave the things
that work well alone.  There's no point in re-inventing the whole system
just because of some small perceived flaws. 

>This is not a design flaw per say, but let's face it: Unix would be a lot
>more secure (and more flexible in it's security) with ACL's.
>
>Microsoft Windows has had ACL's since 1991 (Windows NT 3.5?); that was 11
>years ago.

Yeah, and look how much more secure it is than UNIX.

		Linus