The full scope across this batch: POST /sessions key→token exchange, SessionStore dual-index with revoke_by_id, CLI Bearer injection (ONTOREF_TOKEN), ontoref setup --gen-keys, install scripts, daemon config form roundtrip, ADR-004/005, on+re self-description update (fully-self-described), and landing page refresh.
639 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
639 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
# Rustikon 2026 - Slide Text (Reader Version)
|
||
|
||
One section per real Slidev slide (parser-based count).
|
||
|
||
## Slide 1
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 1 - Hook & Promise
|
||
TENSION: Low -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Credibilidad y dolor real
|
||
DELIVERY: Calma, pausas limpias
|
||
|
||
Why I Needed Rust
|
||
Finally, Infrastructure Automation I Can Sleep On
|
||
🛡 ●●●○○
|
||
😴 ●●●○○
|
||
🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 2
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 1 - Hook & Promise
|
||
TENSION: Low -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Credibilidad y dolor real
|
||
DELIVERY: Calma, pausas limpias
|
||
|
||
Years. One Problem.
|
||
1987 → 2025
|
||
Era Tool Lesson
|
||
----- ------ --------
|
||
1990s Perl Power without safety is a disaster
|
||
2000s Python Pragmatism without guarantees is fragile
|
||
2010s Bash · Chef · Ansible · Terraform More tools don't solve paradigm problems
|
||
2020s Go · ???
|
||
Each time, I thought I had the answer.
|
||
Each time, reality proved me wrong.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 3
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 1 - Hook & Promise
|
||
TENSION: Low -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Credibilidad y dolor real
|
||
DELIVERY: Calma, pausas limpias
|
||
|
||
The Evolution
|
||
How we got here
|
||
|
||
## Slide 4
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 2 - Escalation
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Crecimiento de complejidad sin control
|
||
DELIVERY: Ritmo creciente
|
||
|
||
Stage 1 — Local (late 80s / early 90s)
|
||
Dumb terminals. Single machine. One state.
|
||
Local development, long deployment cycles, low urgency
|
||
One state — easy to observe, easy to control
|
||
IaC: procedural scripts, logic hidden inside the application
|
||
> The Perl Era: we could do anything.
|
||
>
|
||
> We could also break anything.
|
||
>
|
||
> Beautiful, terrifying metaprogramming.
|
||
>
|
||
> No safety net.
|
||
> Silent failures at 3 AM.
|
||
>
|
||
> Lesson: power without safety is a disaster.
|
||
🛡 ●●●●○ 😴 ●●●●○ 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 5
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 2 - Escalation
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Crecimiento de complejidad sin control
|
||
DELIVERY: Ritmo creciente
|
||
|
||
Stage 2 — Networks / Internet
|
||
Systems getting farther away. More people. More coordination.
|
||
Remote access, distributed teams, security becomes relevant
|
||
Cost of downtime rises — processes become critical
|
||
Harmonizing: package installs, config, updates across multiple machines in parallel
|
||
IaC: reproducible automation, first declarative attempts
|
||
> The Python Era: rapid development, great community.
|
||
>
|
||
> But nothing stopped you from being wrong.
|
||
>
|
||
> Type hints came late — and optional.
|
||
>
|
||
> Runtime errors >> compile-time errors.
|
||
>
|
||
> Lesson: pragmatism without guarantees is fragile.
|
||
More pieces. More people. Getting interesting.
|
||
🛡 ●●●○○ 😴 ●●●○○ 🔥 ●●○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 6
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 2 - Escalation
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Crecimiento de complejidad sin control
|
||
DELIVERY: Ritmo creciente
|
||
|
||
Stage 3 — Containers / Cloud / CI-CD
|
||
Everything. Everywhere. All at once.
|
||
Monolith → distributed, 24×7×365, high availability
|
||
Cloud, hybrid, multi-cloud, on-prem — simultaneously
|
||
Rollback and rollforward: database transactions, but for infrastructure
|
||
Scale horizontally AND vertically — and descale
|
||
CI/CD continuous: new features, new deploys, permanent churn
|
||
> The Cloud/IaC Era: Ansible, Terraform, Chef, Puppet.
|
||
>
|
||
> What changed? The syntax.
|
||
>
|
||
> What didn't? The fundamental problems.
|
||
>
|
||
> Still fighting type safety. Still discovering errors in production.
|
||
>
|
||
> Lesson: more tools don't solve paradigm problems.
|
||
🛡 ●●○○○ 😴 ●○○○○ 🔥 ●●●●○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 7
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 2 - Escalation
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Crecimiento de complejidad sin control
|
||
DELIVERY: Ritmo creciente
|
||
|
||
I could automate infrastructure.
|
||
But I couldn't make it reliable.
|
||
I couldn't prevent mistakes.
|
||
I couldn't sleep.
|
||
🛡 ●○○○○ 😴 ○○○○○ 🔥 ●●●●●
|
||
|
||
## Slide 8
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
Why IaC Fails
|
||
The restaurant problem
|
||
|
||
## Slide 9
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
The Restaurant
|
||
Every restaurant has at least three actors.
|
||
Restaurant Infrastructure
|
||
--- ---
|
||
Guest declares what they want Declarative config (YAML, HCL)
|
||
Waiter validates and transmits Orchestrator (K8s, Ansible)
|
||
Kitchen executes and delivers Runtime / provisioning
|
||
Dish arrives — or doesn't Deployment succeeds — or not
|
||
What makes it work — or not:
|
||
The guest declares. Doesn't implement.
|
||
The waiter must know what's possible — before going to the kitchen.
|
||
> "I want X" → waiter goes to kitchen
|
||
> → "we don't have X, why is it on the menu?"
|
||
> → back to the table.
|
||
>
|
||
>
|
||
> Equivalent: I configured a host with port 8443 → that port isn't allowed → reconfigure from zero.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 10
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
The Truth That Mutates
|
||
State is not static. It can change at every step of the chain.
|
||
Step Truth for this actor
|
||
--- ---
|
||
Guest speaks What they want
|
||
Waiter's notepad What was written down
|
||
Kitchen markings What's done / not done
|
||
Payment ticket What was actually served
|
||
> Fail early = fail cheap. Fail in production = nightmare.
|
||
The context problem:
|
||
The waiter knows the regular customer: "always no salt."
|
||
The kitchen doesn't. If the waiter changes — that context disappears.
|
||
Configuration drift is the same thing: Implicit state. Not explicit. Not propagated. Lost silently.
|
||
The cost of failure depends on where it happens:
|
||
Fail at the table (impossible order): cheap — caught before kitchen
|
||
Fail in kitchen (ingredient missing): medium — renegotiate with guest
|
||
Fail at delivery (wrong dish arrives): expensive — experience destroyed
|
||
|
||
## Slide 11
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
"We Don't Have Mushrooms"
|
||
When an actor in the chain can't fulfill part of the order.
|
||
> "Can I substitute vegetables?"
|
||
>
|
||
> That renegotiation must be explicit. Traced. Re-authorized. Not silent. Not assumed.
|
||
Configuration drift is silent renegotiation:
|
||
The system changes. Nobody notified. State diverges without trace.
|
||
Rust's answer — Option :
|
||
[code example]
|
||
> The compiler is the waiter who cannot pretend an ingredient exists.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 12
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
The Config Evolution
|
||
How we got from code to YAML hell
|
||
Hardcoded — everything inside the binary. Full control. Zero flexibility.
|
||
External config (JSON) — works between machines. Unreadable for humans at scale.
|
||
YAML / TOML — more readable. Fragile syntax. Implicit types. Silent errors.
|
||
YAML + Serde — Serde validates the structure:
|
||
Does the field exist? Is it the right type?
|
||
Do we accept "elephant" as a pet? If the type is String... yes.
|
||
Serde validates shape. Not meaning.
|
||
Helm / Jinja templates — YAML generated from variables (in YAML).
|
||
Does it validate the content of the generated YAML? No. Not at all.
|
||
Like using an LLM with a markdown reference: the format is there,
|
||
but is the content correct? Nobody guarantees that.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 13
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
Continuous CI/CD.
|
||
No semantic validation.
|
||
Continuous hope.
|
||
(crossing our fingers in production)
|
||
🛡 ●○○○○ 😴 ○○○○○ 🔥 ●●●●●
|
||
|
||
## Slide 14
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 3 - Problem Anatomy
|
||
TENSION: High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Causa raiz y costo de fallar tarde
|
||
DELIVERY: Didactico, frases cortas
|
||
|
||
Three Questions Without Answers
|
||
Question 1 —
|
||
— Why do we wait for things to break?
|
||
"Works on my machine" — in production, I don't know
|
||
Fail late = maximum cost. We want: fail fast, fail cheap
|
||
Question 2 —
|
||
— Do we actually know what we want?
|
||
Is the declaration sufficient and consistent with what's possible?
|
||
What are the boundaries? Static or dynamic? What is the source of truth — and when does it mutate?
|
||
Question 3 —
|
||
Can we guarantee determinism ?
|
||
CI/CD without semantic validation = continuous hope
|
||
We want certainty, not randomness
|
||
"Works on my machine" cannot be the production standard
|
||
> We're not inventing anything new. Everything already exists.
|
||
> The question is whether we're managing it correctly.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 15
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 4 - Turning Point
|
||
TENSION: Peak
|
||
EMPHASIS: No faltan tools, falta paradigma
|
||
DELIVERY: Silencios intencionales
|
||
|
||
The tools weren't the problem.
|
||
The languages weren't the problem.
|
||
The paradigm was the problem.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 16
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 4 - Turning Point
|
||
TENSION: Peak
|
||
EMPHASIS: No faltan tools, falta paradigma
|
||
DELIVERY: Silencios intencionales
|
||
|
||
Systems we don't know how to control.
|
||
We hope they work.
|
||
When they don't — we fix them.
|
||
Continuous nightmare.
|
||
( alarm state as the new normal)
|
||
🛡 ●○○○○ 😴 ○○○○○ 🔥 ●●●●●
|
||
|
||
## Slide 17
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 4 - Turning Point
|
||
TENSION: Peak
|
||
EMPHASIS: No faltan tools, falta paradigma
|
||
DELIVERY: Silencios intencionales
|
||
|
||
Rust
|
||
The answer to all three questions
|
||
|
||
## Slide 18
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 4 - Turning Point
|
||
TENSION: Peak
|
||
EMPHASIS: No faltan tools, falta paradigma
|
||
DELIVERY: Silencios intencionales
|
||
|
||
The Bridge: From Serde to Types
|
||
Serde loads structurally valid config.
|
||
But "elephant" as pet: String compiles.
|
||
Rust's answer: don't use String. Use a type.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
This is the shift.:
|
||
Not the config format. The model of what it can contain.
|
||
Serde validates shape Types validate meaning
|
||
The compiler validates before the binary exists.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 19
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 5 - Resolution
|
||
TENSION: High -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Types y compiler como respuesta
|
||
DELIVERY: Claro y tecnico
|
||
|
||
What Rust Gives Us
|
||
Answer to Question 1: fail early, fail cheap
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Answer to Question 2: explicit contracts
|
||
[code example]
|
||
|
||
## Slide 20
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 5 - Resolution
|
||
TENSION: High -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Types y compiler como respuesta
|
||
DELIVERY: Claro y tecnico
|
||
|
||
The Compiler as Pre-Validator
|
||
Answer to Question 3:
|
||
guaranteed determinism
|
||
[code example]
|
||
The compiler validates:
|
||
Before building the binary
|
||
Not after hours of execution
|
||
Not when a function nobody touched in months finally gets called
|
||
Predictable behavior: memory, resources, workflows
|
||
The compiler is the waiter who validates the order.
|
||
Before it reaches the kitchen.
|
||
Before the guest waits.
|
||
Before any ingredient is missing.
|
||
🛡 ●●●●○ 😴 ●●●●○ 🔥 ●●○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 21
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 5 - Resolution
|
||
TENSION: High -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Types y compiler como respuesta
|
||
DELIVERY: Claro y tecnico
|
||
|
||
The Human Impact
|
||
When the system is trustworthy:
|
||
✓ Sleep comes back
|
||
✓ Confidence returns
|
||
✓ The team trusts the automation
|
||
✓ Stress decreases
|
||
✓ You can actually rest
|
||
> What you can't measure: fear .
|
||
>
|
||
> What you can measure: MTTR .
|
||
>
|
||
> Before: > 30 minutes. Now: .
|
||
🛡 ●●●●● 😴 ●●●●● 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 22
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 5 - Resolution
|
||
TENSION: High -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Types y compiler como respuesta
|
||
DELIVERY: Claro y tecnico
|
||
|
||
Continuous CI/CD.
|
||
Types. Compiler. Explicit state.
|
||
Continuous certainty.
|
||
(to keep sleeping well)
|
||
🛡 ●●●●● 😴 ●●●●● 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 23
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 5 - Resolution
|
||
TENSION: High -> Medium
|
||
EMPHASIS: Types y compiler como respuesta
|
||
DELIVERY: Claro y tecnico
|
||
|
||
In Production
|
||
This is not theory
|
||
|
||
## Slide 24 (name: provisioning)
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
import { ref, computed } from 'vue'
|
||
const useWhite = ref(false)
|
||
const bgStyle = computed(() => ({
|
||
backgroundImage: url('${useWhite.value ? "/w-arch-diag-v2.svg" : "/arch-diag-v2.svg"}'),
|
||
backgroundSize: 'contain',
|
||
backgroundRepeat: 'no-repeat',
|
||
backgroundPosition: 'center',
|
||
position: 'absolute',
|
||
inset: '0',
|
||
cursor: 'pointer',
|
||
}))
|
||
🌗
|
||
|
||
## Slide 25
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Nickel
|
||
YAML rejected. TOML rejected. Reason: no type safety.
|
||
YAML wrote what we wanted.
|
||
It couldn't say what was possible.
|
||
Nickel closes that gap
|
||
— at config time, not at 3 AM.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Typed Source of Truth
|
||
Result (ADR-003): zero configuration type errors in production.
|
||
Config hierarchy:
|
||
defaults → workspace → profile → environment → runtime
|
||
Each layer merges.
|
||
Type system catches conflicts.
|
||
At config time — not deployment time.
|
||
The guest wrote an impossible order.
|
||
Nickel makes impossible orders unwritable.
|
||
> Serde validates shape.
|
||
>
|
||
> Nickel validates meaning.
|
||
>
|
||
> The compiler validates before deployment.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 26
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Traits as Provider
|
||
The kitchen can change. AWS ≠ UpCloud ≠ bare metal. Same menu.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Explicit state — no drift:
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Contracts
|
||
Checkpoint every 5 minutes
|
||
No implicit state.
|
||
> No "the waiter remembers the customer doesn't want salt."
|
||
It's in the order. Always. Explicit.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 27
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Dependency Graph
|
||
Failfast: bool is not a config option.
|
||
It's a principle encoded as a type.
|
||
Typed DAG — dependency resolution enforced at workflow compile time:
|
||
The kitchen doesn't serve the main course before the starter is done.
|
||
DependencyType::Hard is that rule. In the type system, not in a runbook.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Fail Fast, Fail Cheap
|
||
DependencyType::Hard - failure stops the chain. Always.
|
||
DependencyType::Soft - continues, explicitly degraded.
|
||
DependencyType::Optional - missing is expected and fine.
|
||
> The compiler catches the install order.
|
||
> Not the on-call engineer at 2 AM.
|
||
🛡 ●●●●● 😴 ●●●●● 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 28
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Real Applications
|
||
## Kubernetes
|
||
The orchestrator provisions cluster components as a typed workflow:
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Each dependency is a DependencyType.
|
||
The compiler catches: installing Cilium without Kubernetes.
|
||
Not the on-call engineer at 2 AM.
|
||
>"In my machine it works" has a price here.
|
||
>
|
||
> This is the highest-stakes infrastructure in the deck.
|
||
## Blockchain Validators
|
||
Validators require brutal uptime.
|
||
A validator that fails loses funds — not your infrastructure's money.
|
||
Your customer's.
|
||
Post-quantum cryptography: CRYSTALS-Kyber + Falcon + AES-256-GCM hybrid. Validator keys protected against quantum computers.
|
||
SLOs with real error budgets: 99.99% = 52.6 min downtime/year. Prometheus blocks deploys when burn rate exceeds budget.
|
||
Deterministic config: validator parameters are types. A bondamount that isn't a valid u128 doesn't compile.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 29
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Disaster Recovery
|
||
Rollback as a type, not a procedure
|
||
3 AM. Something broke. You need to rollback.
|
||
Without types: you improvise.
|
||
With types: you choose a strategy
|
||
— or it doesn't compile.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
Multi-backend backup: restic, borg, tar, rsync
|
||
— all as enum variants.
|
||
Production backup and DR restore use the same type, the same schema.
|
||
> The runbook exists.
|
||
>
|
||
> Nobody reads it clearly at 3 AM under pressure.
|
||
>
|
||
> The type forces the decision before the crisis.
|
||
>
|
||
> The state is the same in prod and in DR. Always.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 30
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Self-Healing
|
||
> When something breaks at 3 AM
|
||
> — the system responds, not you.
|
||
[code example]
|
||
— Typed Remediation
|
||
What happens at 3 AM:
|
||
Alert fires → RemediationEngine matches condition → runs RestartService
|
||
Works: silent. Nobody woken up.
|
||
Fails 3×: page sent — with full state, checkpoint, and execution history.
|
||
> You wake up to information. Not to chaos.
|
||
🛡 ●●●●● 😴 ●●●●● 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 31
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 6 - Proof in Production
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> High
|
||
EMPHASIS: Casos reales e impacto operativo
|
||
DELIVERY: Energetico y concreto
|
||
|
||
Without types. Without compiler. Without explicit state.
|
||
MTTR > 30 minutes.
|
||
────────────────────────
|
||
Rust. Types. Explicit state.
|
||
Automated response.
|
||
MTTR (at 3 AM. without you.)
|
||
🛡 ●●●●● 😴 ●●●●● 🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
|
||
## Slide 32
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 7 - Close & CTA
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> Low
|
||
EMPHASIS: Cierre emocional con accion
|
||
DELIVERY: Lento y memorable
|
||
|
||
Why This Matters
|
||
For everyone in this room
|
||
|
||
## Slide 33
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 7 - Close & CTA
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> Low
|
||
EMPHASIS: Cierre emocional con accion
|
||
DELIVERY: Lento y memorable
|
||
|
||
For You
|
||
If you've been frustrated like me
|
||
Rust solves problems you already have.
|
||
This is not hype. It is operational relief.
|
||
Start here:
|
||
Model your infrastructure as types
|
||
Let the compiler pre-validate before deployment
|
||
If you're earlier in your career
|
||
Start with type safety from day one.
|
||
Build for reliability, not only speed.
|
||
The shortest path:
|
||
Types for config.
|
||
Traits for providers.
|
||
Determinism for operations.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 34
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 7 - Close & CTA
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> Low
|
||
EMPHASIS: Cierre emocional con accion
|
||
DELIVERY: Lento y memorable
|
||
|
||
I have perspective from long production experience.
|
||
I have seen technologies come and go.
|
||
Rust is not hype. Rust is relief with evidence.
|
||
It solves real operational problems I had for decades.
|
||
More years is not a liability.
|
||
It is an advantage.
|
||
|
||
## Slide 35 (name: end)
|
||
|
||
STORY: Act 7 - Close & CTA
|
||
TENSION: Medium -> Low
|
||
EMPHASIS: Cierre emocional con accion
|
||
DELIVERY: Lento y memorable
|
||
|
||
Why I Needed Rust
|
||
🛡 ●●●●●
|
||
😴 ●●●●●
|
||
🔥 ●○○○○
|
||
Three Closing Lines
|
||
I have lived this problem for decades.
|
||
Rust gave me deterministic systems and better sleep.
|
||
Start small: model infrastructure as types.
|
||
Thank you. Questions?
|
||
More info:
|
||
· jesusperez.pro
|
||
· provisioning.systems · vapora.dev · rustelo.dev
|
||
|