Domain name for roll-up site?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

One thing I'm missing at this point is a suitable domain name. I do not currently own a domain that seems appropriate.

In a lot of ways, cap-lore feels right, but I'm conflicted. What I'm proposing to do fits Norm's intent for cap-lore, but I don't want to usurp what he created. On the other hand, cap-lore won't last in isolation; at some point someone will stop paying the domain name fees unless a group is structured to maintain it.

If you have any good ideas, could you please email them to me *privately*. I say privately because every domain name we put out in public will be snapped up before we can acquire it.

Thanks

Jonathan

[David Nicol]

Want a subdomain of microfluffy.com?

Nothing but net

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cap-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cap-talk+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CAAP%3D3QPOeKzjMUWwtt2p8L7MNSxb14_6XDUvzeV7A1izwCAs9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

Thanks, David. I appreciate the thought. That's a ridiculously cute TLD, by the way.

I think we want a TLD for this, because we want it associated with a registrar account that can be taken over by a new maintainer at some point.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CAFwScO_-4yUMP4T6mwSZiyEBVqvQfNEjXCDMcc3WOK%2B6qKCfxg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rob Meijer]

What exactly is the intended use?

I own capibara.com, that used to be the home of MinorFS  ( 

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/10199

) amongst other things.

Here is a blog about it's history:

https://hive.blog/capibara/@pibara/selling-capibaracom-a-littel-piece-of-early-internet-history

I was actually looking into selling it, partially in order to allow me to be able to fund working less on my day job so I can work on my insane stack of pet projects ( https://hive.blog/hive-139531/@pibara/my-insane-20-project-pet-stack--quantum-resistance ) that aims to include a lot of POLA and caps adjacent stuff, but for what I currently have way too little spare time to ever complete all of it. 

If your intended use for the domain is in the same spirit as MinorFS and of my current pet project stack, inclusive of sparse caps, and if it is somehow possible to maintain ownership while delegating administration and renewal, the knowledge that it has a new home in the spirit of its history might make me reconsider wanting to sell it.

Kind regards.

--

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

OK. Following up on this. I now hold:

• cap-systems.com
• cap-theory.com
• cap-history.com
• cap-history.org

The missing .org domains have been registered by others, and it seems unlikely that we are going to be able to get them.

I'm inclined to go with cap-systems or cap-history. I kind of prefer cap-systems because it has more of a "living" feel to it, but I'd be totally good with either.

Now that these are grabbed, feel free to respond here. Quick show of hands?

Jonathan

[Alan Karp]

cap-systems

cap-theory sounds like capabilities aren't useful

cap-history sounds like they're, well, history

I bet cap-security dot something is available.

--------------
Alan Karp

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cap-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cap-talk+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CAAP%3D3QO6C01c6_JW__fjgda%2BmpWq4jEc4Ya4aNdp%3Dh7BWu_sHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Rice]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 12:44 AM Alan Karp <alan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> cap-systems

I prefer cap-systems too,

> cap-theory sounds like capabilities aren't useful

Whenever cap theory is used, I've always preferred the use of
capability discipline instead.
Not for the 'sounds like they aren't useful' instead because I feel
like if something is presented as a theory,
there is a formalism that comes along with that and as such it should
be presented alongside or referencing the actual theorems. It also
seems to imply there is a single unified theory of capabilities, where
there really seems to be variation between systems and substrates.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CANpA1Z0PZzqVn5ovGrv5F7te5KP7uDHkEZNcJtqaZhj5yYncJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark S. Miller]

I think I missed something. Why not cap-lore?

Btw, I also hold dozens of cap oriented domain names for just such purposes. I'll try to gather and post a list soon.

In any case, cap-systems sounds fine to me too.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CACTLOFrC1wqRWhctdETNNG5uU0uO0NL4gM_qJXMvyH_Rs9Kxpg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

  Cheers,
  --MarkM

[Mark S. Miller]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 8:22 PM Matt Rice <rat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 12:44 AM Alan Karp <alan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> cap-systems

I prefer cap-systems too,

> cap-theory sounds like capabilities aren't useful

Whenever cap theory is used, I've always preferred the use of
capability discipline instead.
Not for the 'sounds like they aren't useful' instead because I feel
like if something is presented as a theory,
there is a formalism that comes along with that and as such it should
be presented alongside or referencing the actual theorems.  It also
seems to imply there is a single unified theory of capabilities, where
there really seems to be variation between systems and substrates.

I agree that I don't like cap-theory for the website name. That said, I do think there is a single unified theory of *object-capabilities*, which I tried to state precisely in my dissertation. As with other unified theories, there can be multiple concrete formalizations that emphasize or ignore different aspects. So "single unified theory" need not imply a unique formal expression of the theory. The precise theory as stated in my dissertation has indeed been formalized in many different ways.

There have also been many things called "capabilities", most infamously "posix capabilities", that are not the capabilities we mean. Are there meanings of capability that we do want to include that are outside object-capabilities?

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CACTLOFrC1wqRWhctdETNNG5uU0uO0NL4gM_qJXMvyH_Rs9Kxpg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

  Cheers,
  --MarkM

[Matt Rice]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:10 AM Mark S. Miller <eri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think I missed something. Why not cap-lore?
>

You did, I quote the relevant paragraph in shap's initial email
starting the thread.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 6:51 PM Jonathan S. Shapiro
<jonathan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a lot of ways, cap-lore feels right, but I'm conflicted. What I'm proposing to do fits Norm's intent for cap-lore, but I don't want to usurp what he created. On the other hand, cap-lore won't last in isolation; at some point someone will stop paying the domain name fees unless a group is structured to maintain it.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CAK5yZYi4dW6Ztn6%3DNDUvKMpqj_Zv%3D-Rh06_%3DDveFYZHmie7-Vw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Rice]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:19 AM Mark S. Miller <eri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 8:22 PM Matt Rice <rat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 12:44 AM Alan Karp <alan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > cap-systems
>>
>> I prefer cap-systems too,
>>
>> > cap-theory sounds like capabilities aren't useful
>>
>> Whenever cap theory is used, I've always preferred the use of
>> capability discipline instead.
>> Not for the 'sounds like they aren't useful' instead because I feel
>> like if something is presented as a theory,
>> there is a formalism that comes along with that and as such it should
>> be presented alongside or referencing the actual theorems. It also
>> seems to imply there is a single unified theory of capabilities, where
>> there really seems to be variation between systems and substrates.
>
>
> I agree that I don't like cap-theory for the website name. That said, I do think there is a single unified theory of *object-capabilities*, which I tried to state precisely in my dissertation. As with other unified theories, there can be multiple concrete formalizations that emphasize or ignore different aspects. So "single unified theory" need not imply a unique formal expression of the theory. The precise theory as stated in my dissertation has indeed been formalized in many different ways.
>

When I said that I was mostly considering differences like password
capabilities, distributed vs single system and whether or not
revocation is supported. These have implications which affect the
power such as forgable or unforgeable, so I have some resistance to
considering them unified in that sense but certainly sharing many
foundations.

I agree that your dissertation gives such, what I meant to convey is
that I feel that the weight of cap theory behooves the levels of rigor
that formalisms such as your dissertation provide. Only rarely have I
seen "cap theory" used when reaching those same levels of rigor.
Simply because the above stated diversity of power, mean you and I
might have different versions of forgeable or revocability when we
both discuss "cap theory".

I didn't intend to say that e.g. your dissertation doesn't provide it.
On the contrary, just that when cap theory is used it often isn't held
that level of formalism that your dissertation does provide.

I hope that clears it up

> There have also been many things called "capabilities", most infamously "posix capabilities", that are not the capabilities we mean. Are there meanings of capability that we do want to include that are outside object-capabilities?
>

Not that I wish to include.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CAK5yZYjNVQ-Z%3DJtMvGZ6qvBFnOTP4bDT0hDdzPJg_CsD2X%2B%2BTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark S. Miller]

[+Dean Tribble]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 1:20 AM Matt Rice <rat...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:10 AM Mark S. Miller <eri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think I missed something. Why not cap-lore?
>

You did, I quote the relevant paragraph in shap's initial email
starting the thread.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 6:51 PM Jonathan S. Shapiro
<jonathan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a lot of ways, cap-lore feels right, but I'm conflicted. What I'm proposing to do fits Norm's intent for cap-lore, but I don't want to usurp what he created.

I discussed this with Norm before he (or his family) transferred it to Dean and I. As long as the existing cap-lore content is maintained at their current URLs, all the rest we're talking about in this thread absolutely fits with Norm's intent. Please don't avoid cap-lore for this reason. cc'ing Dean.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cap-talk/CACTLOFprGiK_j7OYoHwWzUjY3WGtyVPfcZ30%3DDM0XWd5NSvW-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

  Cheers,
  --MarkM

[Matt Rice]

Perhaps a better way is to juxtapose cap theory and type theory,
and cap-systems to type systems.

Type theory is rarely used in individual systems, rather in the study
of type theory itself.
E.g. a particular language rarely uses a "type theory".

Type systems generally refer to a particular calculus/instance of a
type theory of some particular power.
while a particular "cap system" typically refers to the software as a
whole along with its underlying theory.
cap systems rarely are described in terms of their individual calculus.

So if the term is going to do double duty, referring to both the
formulation of the underlying foundations,
shared among individual systems, and the theory of a particular system.
I prefer a term like discipline which doesn't seek to convey a unified basis.
Particularly when not all systems are of equivalent power.

Anyhow I'm just going to shut up now, sorry for all the words.