[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADSwgy_YCz8eR6v=jF24Y7VdvB-XdVxQzRA-h3gonn77pc93NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 16:27:29 +0000
From: Simon Baker <simonb@...zo.org>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Andrew Crichton <andy@...ycrichton.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Owl future
> > Let's look at this differently: what was the value of Owl so far?
Small, simple, elegant, lean.
As close to the bsd's as was reasonable.
Virtualization support was a pleasant bonus, but not expected.
> > Finally, as to the future of Owl itself, we need to know why we'd be
> > continuing to put effort into Owl. Do we have more new approaches to
> > demo to others in this way, or would we be playing catch-up? I think it
> > might be mostly the latter.
Imho, without embracing kvm, and therefore taking on that clusterfuck of a
security model, you cannot compete with red hat et al in the enterprise
space. That said, I don't believe that was ever your intention. For me,
Owl is turning in to an heirloom linux. And, that is not a bad goal.
Keep it small, keep it safe, and keep it tidy.
S.
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
