From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from duke.felloff.net ([216.126.196.34]) by ur; Mon Aug 8 12:33:48 EDT 2016 Message-ID: <735bd46159bae3ce5da21ce3c13b9321@felloff.net> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:33:41 +0200 From: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] inquery: plans for phasing out cpu, rx and import In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: RESTful anonymous firewall configuration cache method frontend > perhaps they are interested more in history than security. plan9 is different. you dont have many separate installations, but usually you share one file server with many computers. so keeping stuff consistent is easy. interoperability between systems is a different matter. note that inferno is also incompatible to plan9. it shares 9p but its authentication infrastucture is different. i think backwards compatibility is fine for now, but long term i'd rather want a clean system that someone can understand fully. this was the most valuable thing with plan9 for me, i could read the code and understand it. if i now want to understand how exportfs works, my eyes bleed when i have to read the main function of exportfs because of all this import crap in there. it shouldnt deal with authentication, encryption and aan networking. with rcpu, concerns are much better separated. exportfs really just exports a file tree serving 9p on its stdinput and output file descriptors. so its not just security, its about complexity. i want people to love 9front when they realize that it can do what ssh does and much more but all with a rc script that is smaller than ther ssh configuration file. -- cinap