Perhaps it's a mad thought, but what about building a p9p-alike on top of a
modified, ported Plan 9 libc? I expect most of the system calls would pose no
more trouble than in p9p. It's work to be done over again, borrowing methods
from p9p, but some parts will actually be easier. For
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 August 2010 12:35, Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 1 Aug 2010, at 8:43, pancake wrote:
I want to say that in latest glibc (see archlinux) many 9base programs
cant be executed because of being
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM, yy yiyu@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/1 Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm:
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.
Do you
On 1 Aug 2010, at 8:43, pancake wrote:
I want to say that in latest glibc (see archlinux) many 9base
programs cant be executed because of being static.
I sent the other mail off then I thought, are you talking about
finding a sane libc for any linux, not just sta.li? I've been thinking
On 1 August 2010 12:35, Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 1 Aug 2010, at 8:43, pancake wrote:
I want to say that in latest glibc (see archlinux) many 9base programs
cant be executed because of being static.
I sent the other mail off then I thought, are you talking about
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
2010/8/1 Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm:
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.
Do you know what would give a more complete Plan 9 experience? Plan 9.
