Future and impact of ongoing projects in Linux world

[Xen]

Colin Law schreef op 09-10-2016 16:48:
> On 9 October 2016 at 15:43, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>> Colin Law schreef op 09-10-2016 14:38:
>>> 
>>> On 9 October 2016 at 12:56, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Colin Law schreef op 09-10-2016 9:28:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> I was not commenting on any particular topic, merely pointing out 
>>>>> that
>>>>> that Ralf (I think) said there are some things that Linux "does not
>>>>> allow" and you answered this with a post referring to things that
>>>>> Linux "can't" do and the two things are not the same. I also stated
>>>>> that things that Linux will not allow are generally security 
>>>>> related.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is any of that untrue?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> You might as well state that the sun is not green and that might 
>>>> also not
>>>> be
>>>> untrue. But the question is whether that is relevant or related or
>>>> whether
>>>> it is a showstopper.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is one question, but as I said it was not my point.  I was 
>>> merely
>>> pointing out that you had misread or misinterpreted the earlier post.
>>> Nothing more or less than that.
>> 
>> 
>> And that is simply not true. And apparently you are arguing for the 
>> sake of
>> arguing.
> 
> In what way is it not true, it was my first post on this thread and
> all I said was:
> 
> "I think there is a difference between *can't* meaning is not able to
> and *won't allow* meaning there is something specifically stopping
> that from happening.  The *won't allow* features are generally for
> security reasons."

I've responded to this to Ralf, but...

I had said Windows can do something that is impossible in Linux.

Ralf responded by saying that it is allowed in Windows but not in Linux 
and that that would probably be for a good reason, or something of the 
kind.

So it was Ralf who muddled the waters between "can" and "be allowed to 
do" and not me.