As many of you may know, I've been advocating stacking up E and its
persistent VATs with MinorFs its pseudo persistent process private data
and MinorFs its ability to define static least privilege for file-system
access.
(see my old presentation on the subject http://polacanthus.net/MinorFS.pdf )
Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to make MinorFs/AppArmor
enthusiasts to even try the (admittedly esoteric) e language, or to get
any response at all from the e language community on the usage of
MinorFs/AppArmor.
I have two questions to what I would like to ask your opinions on:
1) Do you feel it is realistic to bridge the apparent gap between
MinorFs/AppArmor enthusiasts and e-language enthusiasts? And if so
what would be needed to do this?
2) It seems like a very interesting concept to somehow add Tahoe to the
E/MinorFs/AppArmor stack, potentially allowing object granularity
persistence in a robust distributed storage system. Would this be
a good concept to explore, and if it is, would it possibly help
to close the gap (people wise) between MinorFs/AppArmor and E?
3) If adding Tahoe to the stack is a usefull concept, what do you think
would need to change in how MinorFs and Tahoe work now to make the two
work together optimally?
Tnx,
Rob
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
