Re: More on garbage
From: Nick Maclaren (nmm1_at_cus.cam.ac.uk)
Date: 06/11/05
- Next message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: More on garbage collection"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: More on garbage collection"
- In reply to: Jon A. Solworth: "Re: More on garbage"
- Next in thread: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: More on garbage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 11 Jun 2005 21:35:56 GMT
In article <6b0sn2-4f2.ln1@news.rcn.com>,
Jon A. Solworth <solworth@cs.uic.edu> wrote:
>>
>> That is not the case in the real world, and the distinction is yet
>> another way that modern computer science has pulled up the drawbridge
>> of its ivory tower. In accounting and finance, auditability is
>> critical - and Baring's bank went belly-up because it didn't have
>> adequate accountability.
>
>Baring's bank went belly up because it didn't have adequate mechanisms
>for integrity. Lessing performed both trading and accounting tasks,
>very bad system design.
Let's agree on the latter! If his actions had been reported to his
management in an appropriate and timely fashion, he would have been
stopped before the bank went broke (that's the accounting). But, if
he had been prevented from committing the bank's entire finances,
the same would have happened (that's integrity). Baring's bank
lacked both, and is no more.
>> In safety-critical engineering, black
>> boxes and similar are regarded as essential (and there really is
>> no difference between reliability and security).
>
>On the contrary, there is a difference between security and reliability.
>Security has an intelligent adversary where as reliability deals with
>independent random events.
Grrk. All right, I am happy with that (and with both models, incidentally).
However, when it comes to designing for those, there is far more that is
in common than there is different. What is more, a breach of reliability
is a common cause of a breach of security, and vice versa, so it isn't
a good idea to separate them if you want to achieve either.
>You fail to understand the technical meaning of safety and liveness
>in the well established Lamport sense. This is just another example
>of the overloading of words. Because you don't know all the definitions
>of a word, it doesn't mean that my usage is somehow flawed.
I didn't say that your usage of the word is flawed, and didn't mean it.
Sorry if I caused offence that way.
What I meant is that the definitions are an example of how and why
modern computer science has diverged from the real world in general
and engineering in particular. That definition of "safety" is just
plain cuckoo, from a real-world engineering perspective, however
well-established it is in theoretical computer science.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
- Next message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: More on garbage collection"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: More on garbage collection"
- In reply to: Jon A. Solworth: "Re: More on garbage"
- Next in thread: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: More on garbage"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|