Re: [friam] Oracle trying to pollute the name "object capabilities"?

Thanks for taking the time to look more into the context. I'm sensitive on
this one, and from a quick look I misunderstood the intent of what I was
seeing. Since it is specific to ELF, you and Randy are right. It is no
threat. Nevermind, and sorry for the noise.



On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Kenton Varda <[email protected]> wrote:

> Given that linkers have been abusing the term "object" for decades and it
> hasn't seemed to cause much harm to the more general meaning in computer
> science, it seems to me that this very narrow-context definition of "object
> capability" (which AFAICT applies to implementation details of the SPARC
> ELF format that almost no one will ever see anyway) is unlikely to cause us
> any harm. It doesn't even have anything to do with security. I don't think
> this is comparable to POSIX or Netscape capabilities.
>
> I think that calling this "a blatant attempt at false advertising -- or at
> least parasitism and dishonesty" is likely to win only enemies, and make
> people take us less seriously. It's obvious enough how they came up with
> this terminology, given the context, and it seems likely the engineers in
> question didn't even know about our definition of the term. They certainly
> didn't intentionally steal the term.
>
> IMO this isn't worth fighting.
>
> -Kenton
>
> --
> Sandstorm.io is crowdfunding! http://igg.me/at/sandstorm
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Randall Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark —
>>>
>>> I understand your frustration here, sorry I don’t know to whom to
>>> address your concern …
>>>
>>> ...but…
>>>
>>> Aren’t you equally upset by the use of the term “object” in this
>>> document, denoting a chunk of memory that is not even encapsulated? I
>>> gently suggest that the term “capability" is rather in the same situation
>>> as “object.” Namely, it’s too routine, it’s too everyday … it’s expecting
>>> too much for the word to acquire a universally-respected meaning more
>>> subtly crafted than it has in it’s foggy everyday use. Even within a
>>> sub-domain as broad as computational systems.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Randy, I understand your point regarding "object" by itself and
>> "capability" by itself. In both cases, I wish the term originally chosen
>> for these concepts did not overlap with such everyday use of a natural
>> language term whose meaning is broad and vague. However, I do not believe
>> your point applies to the phrase "object capability". That phrase does not
>> normally occur in natural language use. It was also wholly absent in comp
>> sci until recently. In comp sci, it is our community alone that established
>> it as a term of art, specifically because the term "capability" had gotten
>> so corrupted.
>>
>> At this point, any use of the full phrase "object capability" in comp sci
>> to mean something else is a blatant attempt at false advertising -- or at
>> least parasitism and dishonesty. It is an attempt to inherit the positive
>> connotations that the genuine concept has earned while providing something
>> else that does not deserve those connotations.
>>
>>
>>> With enough work, I could try to get you in touch with someone in the
>>> right part of the Oracle org chart, but in order to have the most
>>> constructive impact in the world, we need to select our battles wisely. In
>>> other words, let’s not waste our time when we know we’ll just get the cold,
>>> fishy-eyed stare.
>>>
>>
>> Please. Indeed, I have very little time for such battles, so I pick very
>> few. But I'm willing to bet my scarce battle time on the notion that this
>> one is worth picking.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, in my opinion, you’re under no threat of concept dilution. Anyone
>>> learning about capability systems will immediately appreciate the
>>> expressive power and elegance they offer, and, as with “object,” come to
>>> live their now-enlightened life without confusion when encountering some
>>> document that wants to use the word in a different way. (An Oracle document
>>> no less! Come on! I mean… an Oracle document!)
>>>
>>>
>> One of the most pernicious corruptions that originally drove us to seek a
>> new name was the use of "capability" to name so-called "Posix/Linux
>> capabilities". In this case, the dishonest intentions of those that chose
>> the name are clear -- they cannot claim ignorance. However, by the time we
>> might have considered fighting that battle, it was already too late -- they
>> were already entrenched. The fact that Oracle's misuse of "object
>> capabilities" is not yet entrenched is exactly why this battle might still
>> be winnable.
>>
>> OTOH, supporting your point, we also fought so-called "Netscape
>> capabilities", which was actually part of their very non-capability stack
>> introspection architecture. We also couldn't get them to change. However,
>> they disappeared on their own so, in retrospect, the effort we spent
>> fighting them was wasted.
>>
>> By the time some terminological abuse has grown to the point that we can
>> know it was worth fighting to kill it, it is probably already too late to
>> do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>     -- Randy
>>>
>>> On August 2, 2014 at 10:57:42 AM, Mark S. Miller ([email protected])
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  [+...]
>>>
>>> DAMN!!!
>>>
>>> Who should we complain to in order to get this fixed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Mike Stay <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/819-0690/chapter7-28.html
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Stay - [email protected]
>>>> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike
>>>> http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "friam" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to friam+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
>>>> To post to this group, send email to friam-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/friam.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>     Cheers,
>>>     --MarkM
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>     Cheers,
>>     --MarkM
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cap-talk mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>>
>>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM

_______________________________________________
cap-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk