While debunking these statements has been somewhat efficient thus far, I think something has not been explicitly addressed -- > The boasted transparency of Plan 9 is a product of bringing most > (or really all?) functions, including networking, into a single > framework. That single framework exists as an application of > networking, i.e. 9P, hence living in the application > layer. Descending to network layer is expulsion from the Plan 9 Eden.
This seems to be the premise of the _current_ discussion. And the problem here is that `networking', which ought to apply here as a name for two distinct ideas, is confused as a name for the same thing. That is, the concept of 9P and filesystesms thereof, is an idea of `networking' in a very general sense -- whereas, the "networking" provided by /net, is an application of 9P, and completely distinct from the 9P concept! Now, to say, essentially, that "9P is networking whose application, /net, is itself networking, and so to fondle with this application is to fondle with the fundamentals of Plan 9, which is contradictory to Plan 9 methodology", is absurd (I hope I've properly paraphrased your statement above)! The /net FS is directly an application of 9P, and to add further functionality, such as packet analysis (which seems to be the new hot topic now), is only to go so far as to change the /net "application" -- if, for example, an application on top of /net cannot be made to handle this task -- and this is not, in any sense, fundamentally conradictory to the (abstraction) layer at which one ought to work, in Plan 9 (since, again, we're just working atop 9P). Your further points -- aside from the misconception of NAT and packet analysis and what not -- seem to be fueled by this intuition, so hopefully this clears something up (or at least gives you new material to "debate"). Regards
