On May 30, 6:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Cox) wrote:
> If you want to violate a convention, Plan 9 won't stop you,
> but in doing so you give up compatibility with programs that
> depend on that convention (bind /net/tcp /proc; ps).
> Sure, you could replace ctl and clone and other special files
> Nyang: I must say one thing: you are simply going to LOVE an
> abomination of an acme feature i am working on!
Do let us in on the secret (if you wish) :)
Poking around Plan 9 and 9P, I was wondering whether it would be a
neat hack or some sort of abuse to read and write dynamically served
files at different offsets to get different semantics, instead of
reading and writing different files (ctl, clone, etc.) to do that.
Given that the system encoura
