On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > >> I do. And I also admit, that I think that someone not able to write a >> simple, non-critical application in a robust and fault tolerant way >> per default is a able to write a complex, critical application in a >> robust and fault tolerant way. > > Bleh. ... that I *don't* think ...
Who said anything about whether anybody was *able* to do so? And surely you don't think that considering *more* angles and different implementation options could make someone *less* able? Anyway, this is getting off track. The point was that different systems have different security needs. For some, almost any kind of unexpected allowed access is a potential disaster and far worse than unexpected denied access (nuclear stuff, for instance). For others, almost any kind of unexpected denied access is worse than unexpected allowed access (your MP3 player's firmware). You simply cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach over so diverse a range of applications. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
