namespaces are not public in the sense that they are visible to all
processes.
I was trying to compare UNIX to Plan 9. Apparently, UNIX processes share a
single "public" namespace which therefore has to be protected by access
privileges.
since this started out as a discussion of terminals, i should point out
that terminals by definition have a single user at a time.
What about the so-called "standalone" terminals (~ home computers)? My
intention was to equate a single user UNIX to a Plan 9 standalone terminal.
It's the same difference, I suppose.
i'm not sure what passes for unix these days, but linux at least
does not present network interfaces as block devices. there is no
/dev/eth0.
The point is this can be done even if it hasn't been done. In case of
FreeBSD, the network interfaces are represented under /dev/net. A sample
installation shows this:
crw------- 1 root wheel 0, 29 Aug 21 18:02 de0
crw------- 1 root wheel 0, 70 Aug 21 18:02 lo0
crw------- 1 root wheel 0, 35 Aug 21 18:02 plip0
Does it mean network interfaces are presented as _character_ devices?
Doing "cat foo >de0" gives "Operation not supported by device."
what do you mean by this? the VFS is a kernel interface along the general
lines of plan 9's devtab. everything-is-a-file[server] is a general
principle.
I mean VFS is an abstraction layer that presents a file system. What it
represents as a file system is rather arbitrary.
but on UNIX systems it is limited to resources that can be meaningfully
represented as file systems.
so why is the network hidden in side channels in adjunct namespaces?
I don't understand this one.
--On Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:36 AM -0400 erik quanstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So essentially there shouldn't be a problem with mounting on a single
"public" namespace
namespaces are not public in the sense that they are visible to all
processes.
as long as there is one user on the system.
since this started out as a discussion of terminals, i should point out
that terminals by definition have a single user at a time.
This is classic. Complication is a sign of maturation. Plan 9 has evaded
that by not maturing, by avoiding diversification. Before you get angry
I must say that's my "personal" opinion. Nothing I'm going to "force"
unto you. Nothing I _can_ force unto you.
equally one could say complication is a sign that one's vision was
lacking; a sign that one's system lacks generality.
if you call the opposite of complication immaturity, i'll be proud
to have an operating system that suffers from it.
How does that differ from presenting of a network interface by a block
device on UNIX? And why should avoiding system calls be considered an
advantage? Your VFS layer could do anything expected from /net provided
that file system abstraction for the resources represented under /net is
viable in the first place.
i'm not sure what passes for unix these days, but linux at least
does not present network interfaces as block devices. there is no
/dev/eth0.
The VFS approach is by no means inferior to Plan 9's
everything-is-a-file,
what do you mean by this? the VFS is a kernel interface along the general
lines of plan 9's devtab. everything-is-a-file[server] is a general
principle.
but on UNIX systems it is limited to resources that can be meaningfully
represented as file systems.
so why is the network hidden in side channels in adjunct namespaces?
- erik
