It's an interesting concept. This is half way to replicating pieces of Gastown. I like the idea, but I'm disappointed these tools still fail to address sandboxing as a first class citizen. I want to be able to declaratively set rules for what sandboxes agents execute in and mark context as tainted when untrusted etc. So far I still don't see any of these harnesses properly addressing this space. I'd be interested in knowing if it can be done through the extensibility of Pi, but since it operates directly on the trust layer, it feels like the type of thing that really needs native support.
Not familiar with the details of Pi Durable, but I have tinkered a bit with different sandboxing strategies for Pi. IMHO it would be hard to trust a sandboxing layer built into a harness that is so focused on being fully pluggable/moddable/self-improvable.
When I am using Pi to write extensions for Pi, I feel better running Pi wrapped in a separate os-level sandbox. I guess Pi could do it all, but I am content with how it is.
zmmmmm · · focus · HN ↗
jlkuester7 · · focus · HN ↗
When I am using Pi to write extensions for Pi, I feel better running Pi wrapped in a separate os-level sandbox. I guess Pi could do it all, but I am content with how it is.
LeBit · · focus · HN ↗
These should be decoupled.
Maybe I need nono in one context and smolvm in another or both.
I would not want to trust the harness to self policy.