On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 22:38 +0000, C H Forsyth wrote: > of course, that's just the protocol, and to show the larger > idea of the representation of things by name spaces > (instead of ioctls and special system calls) > would have to include section 3 (devices). > > it's fairly pervasive.
Sure. But that would an argument in favor of the Plan 9/Inferno kernel architecture, not the protocol itself. Nobody's denying that 9P is a perfect match to that kind of kernel architecture. What I'm trying to find out is whether the protocol could stand its own ground even if Plan9 kernel is not serving nor muxing it. I have always used an argument of simplicity and ease of implementation. In fact, from that point of view, 9P is better than FUSE: http://fuse.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/LanguageBindings vs http://9p.cat-v.org/implementations That's the good news, the bad news is that the "Network effect" seems to be really working in favor of FUSE: the amount of *already* implemented fileservers is nothing short of amazing. Thanks, Roman.
