> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 08:53:39PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > > > On Sun May 4 18:01:22 EDT 2014, yshu...@lynxline.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Just idea, but seriously, why cannot do something like this: > > > > > > # cat /prog/new > $id > > > # cat /dis/ls.dis > /prog/$id/dis > > > # echo "/" > /prog/$id/cwd > > > # echo «Running» > /prog/$id/status > > > > > > Not to do it which echo/cat, but to have remote access to /prog/new > > > > so that's an interesting idea. i've toyed with the idea of having > > a mount driver analog for system calls, but got tripped up on > > the details, and the lack of a specific need. > > The Bell Labs paper about plan9 talks about metaphors that can be > abused: "Nonetheless, it is possible to push the idea of file-base > computing too far." This the "Discussion" at the end of the paper... > Playing with the idea and thinking about the implementation is probably > a good way to understand the paper...
i think it's possible to take the papers too far. :-) the plan 9 group was in my opinion one of the best ever. but that part of the discussion is a opinion, and was taylored for a very different world, and a different operating system. the opinion was about plan 9 in the early 90s. not inferno today when the internet is ubiquitious. i'd be interested in the argument that things haven't changed enough to call for some reevaulation. additionally, i think it is very interesting to consider a plan 9-like system that has system call namespaces. it is perhaps a way to deal with hetrogenious multiprocessors, or even numa "machines" with big numa differences. like, say, a cluster. - erik
