This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seccomp article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Sandbox (computer security) on September 14, 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I feel that the phrase "burdened with patents that aim to restrict the freedoms of grid computing service providers" is not NPOV. Yes, CPUshare has patents, but Andrea says that "the CPUShare project has simply no choice but to try to play best by the current rules of the economy in the hope to succeed." This suggests to me that it is an issue of preventing larger companies from squashing CPUshare by simply creating a much larger service that can easily beat it.
While the ethics of patenting this may be dubious, we should present both sides of the issue, and not put words in Andrea's mouth about the reason for the patents.
-- ThinkingInBinary 13:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
With the merging of this patch in the mainline kernel seccomp become a totally zero-overhead feature despite the tsc disable.
This further patch even reduces the fixed number of bytes that seccomp takes in the kernel .text:
So the most recent part of the seccomp article is now incorrect and outdated. And I refrain to comment on the CPUShare part because I've clear conflict of interest, so I'll wait the community to sort it out eventually.
Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.242.247 ( talk • contribs)
Indeed, the whole seccomp mechanism has been dusted off and redesigned since the information in the article. Ris icle ( talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is a rather niché topic, and I believe it belongs with sandbox (computer security). My reasoning is this:
-- 70.185.221.158 ( talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The part of the article talking about Sydbox as a user of seccomp is too long as the rest of the list is just a list of users and how they use seccomp whereas that item has a whole paragraph and too many references for a simple list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaggard ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I appreciate your wonderful articles. And, I translated this article and create a new Japanese edition. ja:Secure computing mode. Sorry, some of the translation is not completed and under progress, especially "Software using seccomp or seccomp-bpf" section. Best regards, Mr T.I.71 ( talk) 10:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seccomp article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Sandbox (computer security) on September 14, 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I feel that the phrase "burdened with patents that aim to restrict the freedoms of grid computing service providers" is not NPOV. Yes, CPUshare has patents, but Andrea says that "the CPUShare project has simply no choice but to try to play best by the current rules of the economy in the hope to succeed." This suggests to me that it is an issue of preventing larger companies from squashing CPUshare by simply creating a much larger service that can easily beat it.
While the ethics of patenting this may be dubious, we should present both sides of the issue, and not put words in Andrea's mouth about the reason for the patents.
-- ThinkingInBinary 13:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
With the merging of this patch in the mainline kernel seccomp become a totally zero-overhead feature despite the tsc disable.
This further patch even reduces the fixed number of bytes that seccomp takes in the kernel .text:
So the most recent part of the seccomp article is now incorrect and outdated. And I refrain to comment on the CPUShare part because I've clear conflict of interest, so I'll wait the community to sort it out eventually.
Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.242.247 ( talk • contribs)
Indeed, the whole seccomp mechanism has been dusted off and redesigned since the information in the article. Ris icle ( talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is a rather niché topic, and I believe it belongs with sandbox (computer security). My reasoning is this:
-- 70.185.221.158 ( talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The part of the article talking about Sydbox as a user of seccomp is too long as the rest of the list is just a list of users and how they use seccomp whereas that item has a whole paragraph and too many references for a simple list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaggard ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I appreciate your wonderful articles. And, I translated this article and create a new Japanese edition. ja:Secure computing mode. Sorry, some of the translation is not completed and under progress, especially "Software using seccomp or seccomp-bpf" section. Best regards, Mr T.I.71 ( talk) 10:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)