samuel.rose at gmail.com
Mon Jun 20 23:10:47 UTC 2011
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans at debian.org> wrote:
> The tricky part about things with distribution, or migration, or
> virtualization built in is matching security models. Tools like that
> often work well in a cluster of nodes run by the same administrator.
> There are a couple of challenges for FB.
> The first is the assumption that there is someone running things who can
> make informed trust decisions about code.
> While we expect to have an owner who can make trust decisions about
> their personal information, that's not really the same as someone who
> can make decisions about which code to run.
> The second is that trust decisions seem to be all-or-none in a number of
> I'm not personally that familiar with erlang.
> I think that if there are applications that are useful to FB written in
> Erlang we should definitely look at them.
> I cannot imagine anything about Erlang that would disqualify an Erlang
> application being part of FB.
> However, I also suspect FB will not be any one language. We seem to be
> taking software from where-ever we can find it and using it as
> appropriate. We're not going to have a single software system; so we
> will be unlikely to have a single language. Thus I think it makes more
> sense to look at the applications rather than languages.
Yes. The discussion about Erlang from me is not attempting to suggest
or endorse that somehow Erlang be the only programming language in FB
by any means. Merely an endorsement that for some applications Erlang
can be a useful way to create concurrent distributed applications.
Hollymead Capital Partners, LLC
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan
More information about the Freedombox-discuss