On 2/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
The bash shell supports /dev/tcp.... kind of evil but you can make connections and send strings via file redirection with it. Dave > > - 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? ;) >
