c'mon. linux has consistently gone the other way on this issue. linux doesn't even have a device node for network interfaces.
i don't know anything about the reasoning for this. efficiency? support for a static /dev? i don't know. - erik On Wed Feb 1 11:50:33 CST 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > anyone seen this? > > > > http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/vj/ > Yes quite interesting, and here is a nice writeup: > http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2006/01/27 > > > i don't know if his methods have any application to Plan 9, since the > > Plan 9 IP stack doesn't seem to have the lineage of the linux and bsd > > stacks. i am not intimate with the IP stack code, but it might bear a > > lookover. > >From the very little I know about our IP stack(which comes from reading > >Nemo's > excellent commentary on the 3rd edition kernel source), we might be not too > far from a design similar to what is described there, but I might be > completely > wrong. > > And even if it's not, /net makes it easy to put the IP stack in user space > without > having to change a single line of application code. Ah, the more I deal with > Plan 9, the more I love it :) > > Maybe we should try to convince those lunix people to replace sockets with > something like /net? ;)
