Hi Edouard,
Edouard Klein skribis:
>> I wonder to what extent the combination of ‘make-inetd-constructor’ and
>> ‘least-authority-wrapper’ would fit the bill for you? (This is currently
>> used for the bitlbee, dicod, and rsync services.) It seems to address
>> the main shortcomings listed in
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi,
>
> Edouard Klein skribis:
>
>> I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
>> 2024).
>
> Yay, congrats!
>
Thanks :)
>> I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
>> extensive knowledge of Guix, in case
Hi,
Edouard Klein skribis:
> I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
> 2024).
Yay, congrats!
> I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
> extensive knowledge of Guix, in case I've made a mistake somewhere.
>
>
Wow, that's incredible.
>Port number themselves stem from TCP emerging from earlier protocols (see the
>early RFCs 322, 349, 433 and those that obsolete them), and a clean design
>would probably elect to eschew them, leveraging a \(2^{128}\) address space to
>allow process-to-process
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:20:04PM +0200, Edouard Klein wrote:
> Dear Guix developers,
>
> A paper of mine has been accepted as a Work in Progress at the next
> International Workshop on Plan 9 (http://iwp9.org/).
>
> I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
>
Dear Guix developers,
A paper of mine has been accepted as a Work in Progress at the next
International Workshop on Plan 9 (http://iwp9.org/).
I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
2024).
I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
