On 9/1/18, Emery Hemingway <eh...@posteo.net> wrote: > I don't think you can find better than u9fs for unix. > I tend to use that as a norm, but the backing Plan 9 server is kind of in the wrong "key". OK for Plan 9, but too slow for Linux. Still, that sounds like a warning that better that u9fs is not out there.
> I've tried to use diod once or twice, but it is some weird overengineered > linux shit. > I quickly built it and deployed it on my Linux Mint (32-bit, 1.18.1 or some such), and it builds OK, skips a lot of tests, but fails none. As "root" the tests jam, that can't be good. Trying it out, it fails to find "attach" and there is no clue where that should come from. It did strike me as complex, but if it serves an NFS filesystem, that is probably adequate. I'll wait to pass judgement for after I have it actually serving anything at all. Thanks for your comments, in any case. Lucio. PS: I suppose the Plan 9 problem is that it is too many different things to too many different people and it has yet to find one niche purpose that it serves better than any other OS. It's a sad destiny, really sad.
