On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > On Tue Apr 27 00:31:03 EDT 2010, news...@lava.net wrote: >> What about some mounting/binding hackery where you replace >> /dev/cons so that the original "cpu" command works? > > why the resistance to il? rx is a good example of il's strengths. > in order for cpu to work, it uses 2 extra processes. rx is much > more efficient. (and 1/4 the code) great for your trusted network. > or perhaps your local supercomputer. > > rx doesn't do encryption. a srx using ssl/tls would be > able to sneak a 0 write through since the record layer > should expand that into a application record with > application data length of 0. > I became interested in IL protocol. Please tell me why IL is removed from the main distribution.
Thanks, Ryousei
