On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:35:56 +0100 Ethan Grammatikidis <eeke...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I figure it could go one of two ways. One way some functionality would > be disabled, giving a very p9p-like result. I called this 9libc. The > other way, a 9p multiplexer server could be made. Along with support > servers this could ultimately give a very complete Plan 9 experience > without any of the performance issues of virtualisation or the other > issues of 9vx. I called this Under9. Under9 is distinct from Glendix > in that Glendix is Linux-specific, which doesn't make me happy and > appears make more work for the maintainers. Under9 ought to work with > any kernel the libc has been ported to. Also, Under9 need not try to > load Plan 9 format binaries if that turns out to be inefficient. I've wished for a standalone 9P multiplexer, too, but I don't think it would be useful: the ‘dup device’ (/dev/fd/#) and /proc need to be integrated with whatever takes the place of the OS kernel. Robert Ransom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
