Re: [9fans] plan 9 ports to unix (including libdraw)

[Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 398 bytes --]

Doesnt have to be a difference if you don't want to have it. For us, our fileserver
is also a regular cpuserver used just for the web, mail, and the like. But you could
certainly use it to export your fossil to the network and nothing else; and it would
behave like the old worm. In fact, we are not even exporting venti, since it
runs only on a loopback interface to service fossil requests.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2080 bytes --]

From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 ports to unix (including libdraw)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:45:17 +0900
Message-ID: <df0294ec5aceae44f5797c4640e175a0@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp>

> i'd have thought the auth could happily coexist, though:

So, you think that we don't worry about to have AUTH + Fosssil + Venti
on a machine.   I'm not a speciallist of computer security.   I'd like to know
what is the difference between old file server and new fossil + etc, the
former was a standalone machine, and the latter can be a network machine.

Kenji