4 ms·

> Factotum seems, at best, to be bolted on after the fact. What gives you this impression?

• packetlost 1y ago
  It literally was, it didn't exist until the 4th edition of Plan9. That isn't to say it isn't a good idea (or implementation), but security is very clearly not a primary concern in Plan9.
  • MisterTea 1y ago
    > but security is very clearly not a primary concern in Plan9. That is a myth that keeps getting propagated. https://plan9.io/sys/doc/auth.html https://plan9.io/sys/doc/auth.html
    • packetlost 1y ago
      That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said. Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge.
      • MisterTea 1y ago
        > That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said. Which describes that yes, there was security in Plan 9 prior to Factotum, just that it wasn't good enough. > Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge. It certainly is. You get SSL/TLS for free on Plan 9 as its a service. You dont mess with security code and instead use tlssrv(8). See https://man.9front.org/8/tlssrv https://man.9front.org/8/tlssrv
        • packetlost 1y ago
          I didn't see there wasn't, I said it wasn't a priority. I stand corrected on tlssrv