Re: E + MinorFs + AppArmor: adding Tahoe to the stack ?

Rob Meijer wrote:
>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 can't speak for others, but the reason I have not responded is I
have not understood what is the killer benefit MinorFS provides or
what the big win would be for those who buy into it.

I am somewhat familiar with AppArmor, and I would not have expected to see
a strong and immediate connection between the AppArmor and E communities.
The two systems seem, to me, like they are roughly polar opposites in
their approach to the problem.  AppArmor is a very pragmatic solution
that's intended to work today, and it is a key goal to deal with all the
constraints imposed by legacy software: AppArmor is willing to sacrifice
purity in exchange for making incremental progress on security in systems
of today (perfection is not the goal).  In comparison, E is about a
ground-up redesign, with a longer-term time horizon for adoption, and
E is prepared to sacrifice legacy compatibility in exchange for getting
it right.  Those are two pretty different mindsets, and I would not have
expected a large overlap between those two communities.

>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?

I don't know enough to say, but as a general principle, it is hard
enough as it is to get people to buy into one experimental new approach.
If you are relying on getting people to buy into two experimental new
approaches (people have to get excited about both of those new paradigms
before they'll get excited about your work), then you may have an extra
high activation threshold to deal with.