<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Star Wars and Least Common Mechanism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html</link>
	<description>The Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:20:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1628</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=1273#comment-1628</guid>
		<description>Nikita,
I&#039;m with you that this is a hard one, and think your analysis is good.  Would you dump it if you could re-do the list?  There&#039;s already least priv.
Anon,
TCB post-dates Saltzer and Schroeder, so that&#039;s cheatin&#039;.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nikita,<br />
I&#8217;m with you that this is a hard one, and think your analysis is good.  Would you dump it if you could re-do the list?  There&#8217;s already least priv.<br />
Anon,<br />
TCB post-dates Saltzer and Schroeder, so that&#8217;s cheatin&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1627</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=1273#comment-1627</guid>
		<description>Maybe &quot;keep the TCB small&quot; is what they are driving at.  When there&#039;s a choice of whether something goes in the TCB prefer the option where it doesn&#039;t.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe &#8220;keep the TCB small&#8221; is what they are driving at.  When there&#8217;s a choice of whether something goes in the TCB prefer the option where it doesn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikita</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1626</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikita</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=1273#comment-1626</guid>
		<description>I find that LCM is the Least Intuitive Principle.  I think the reason for this is that when  most people these days think of a shared mechanism, they think of shared libraries, and I believe the principle doesn&#039;t apply to them.
Yes, writing a large number of support libraries has the potential of introducing  bugs, but having everyone roll their own seems even more error prone.  For example, the JPEG vulnerability had a lot of impact, but we were able to eliminate them in a fairly short amount of time.  If a well-tested and widely used component has bugs, can you imagine how many more vulnerabilities there would be in the hundreds of home-brewed JPEG implementations?
The principle text talks about something else, though.  First, it mentionsshared data &amp; resources as channels for information flow — something notably absent from shared libraries.  The second example in fact advocates writing shared libraries instead of a privileged service used by everyone.  I still have trouble wrapping my head around that one, since if there&#039;s something in your system that &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; be implemented as a user library, even if you do provide a privileged implementation of it, there&#039;s nothing forcing your users from switching.
So really, I think the principle (or at least its second part) is saying that you want to design your system so that few mechanisms require privilege, but that&#039;s not the image evoked by the phrase &quot;LCM.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find that LCM is the Least Intuitive Principle.  I think the reason for this is that when  most people these days think of a shared mechanism, they think of shared libraries, and I believe the principle doesn&#8217;t apply to them.<br />
Yes, writing a large number of support libraries has the potential of introducing  bugs, but having everyone roll their own seems even more error prone.  For example, the JPEG vulnerability had a lot of impact, but we were able to eliminate them in a fairly short amount of time.  If a well-tested and widely used component has bugs, can you imagine how many more vulnerabilities there would be in the hundreds of home-brewed JPEG implementations?<br />
The principle text talks about something else, though.  First, it mentionsshared data &#038; resources as channels for information flow — something notably absent from shared libraries.  The second example in fact advocates writing shared libraries instead of a privileged service used by everyone.  I still have trouble wrapping my head around that one, since if there&#8217;s something in your system that <em>could</em> be implemented as a user library, even if you do provide a privileged implementation of it, there&#8217;s nothing forcing your users from switching.<br />
So really, I think the principle (or at least its second part) is saying that you want to design your system so that few mechanisms require privilege, but that&#8217;s not the image evoked by the phrase &#8220;LCM.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Cory</title>
		<link>http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2005/12/star-wars-and-least-common-mechanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-1625</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Cory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:21:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergentchaos.com/?p=1273#comment-1625</guid>
		<description>In Episode 1 all the droids were shut down by the failure of 1 system.  That seems like a failure to implement the LCM principle...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Episode 1 all the droids were shut down by the failure of 1 system.  That seems like a failure to implement the LCM principle&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

