Which distro's version of "text utils" ? hehe ..
Let's not start an anti-linux flame war now ...
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) <
lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> > I don't see any meaning in Linux "adopting" some set of plan 9
> > commands...
>
> Have you read the so
On Wed Jun 22 16:10:43 BST 2011, fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
> I can't remember ever having lost data with fossil+venti,
> on two complete networked systems that have been running
> on fossil/venti since 2004 and 2005,
I am in a very similar situation, two servers since 2004 and have
not lost any
Hey,
On 2 July 2011 19:36, dexen deVries wrote:
> linux'c `clone()' syscall (the underpinnings of fork()) actually do accept
> CLONE_NEWNS, CLONE_NEWNET, CLONE_VM and other flags, pretty close to p9's.
Yeah, clone() is afaik compatible with rfork(), so long as you have
CAP_SYS_ADMIN. Similarly m
> I know bloated GNU projects are generally frowned upon, but I think
> it's quite interesting that GNOME's GVFS allows, afaict, per-process
> synthetic filesystems. But clearly that's extremely ugly compared to
> Plan 9.
and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome
proc
On 3 July 2011 12:55, erik quanstrom wrote:
> and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome
> processes. i can give "file" references to gnome programs like
> http://example.com
> to a gnome proc. cat(1) won't accept the same reference.
Well yes, it would only make se
On Sun Jul 3 08:34:26 EDT 2011, c...@lubutu.com wrote:
> On 3 July 2011 12:55, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome
> > processes. i can give "file" references to gnome programs like
> > http://example.com
> > to a gnome proc. cat(1)
On 3 July 2011 13:51, erik quanstrom wrote:
> what i was trying to say is that even in that case, i think gio is a weak
> model. it goes back to the vms/dos days where the method of access
> becomes part of the name. that is, i need to know if it's accessed via
> http or ftp or local to access a
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Still, FUSE has extended attributes, so you
> could e.g. configure a window manager just by setting attributes on
> the 'window manager filesystem' root directory.
>
something like extended attributes can be accomplished by layering file
I think what I'd say is the most "novel userspace paradigm" in Plan 9
is its pervasive synthetic filesystems. You have FTP filesystems and
so on with FUSE now, but writing something as flexible (technically)
as Rio still requires something other than FUSE. But more importantly,
since Plan 9 *start
On Sunday 03 July 2011 19:57:16 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> Actually, what this discussion keep pointing out is the elegance of the
> Plan9 authentication model vs. UNIX's superuser scheme. It's the lack
> of a superuser that makes the whole namespace paradigm work in the first
> place.
authentica
On Sun Jul 3 13:58:49 EDT 2011, lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
> > I think what I'd say is the most "novel userspace paradigm" in Plan 9
> > is its pervasive synthetic filesystems. You have FTP filesystems and
> > so on with FUSE now, but writing something as flexible (technically)
> > as Rio still requ
why do you think that the lack of a super user make per-process namespaces
work?
The fact that you own the hardware you are running on means there's no
need to provide enhanced priv's (such as root) to protect things like
mount(2). And if you do something stupid, the only damage you can do is
> > why do you think that the lack of a super user make per-process namespaces
> > work?
>
> The fact that you own the hardware you are running on means there's no
> need to provide enhanced priv's (such as root) to protect things like
> mount(2).
that's a property of per-process namespaces,
> they've changed everything else in unix, why hold so tightly to the clearly
> unhelpful ideas?
because it's a cult. things don't make sense in cults. i encountered
the following quote the other day, which finally convinced me. you
can't rationalize things with this sort of thinking:
"It is out
following this thread.
do something interesting.
- build a system with only plan9port binaries
- use the cap device in linux to authenticate yourself
as a user
- have init setuid to that user.
- figure out how to make linux work with no root user
Anything else is likely to be not that interes
Its a pdf about plan9 authentication in linux by one Ashwin Ganti, sorry for
the double post.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, andrew zerger wrote:
> More info for people looking from the same vantage point as me..
>
> This document is something I am about to read.. (I wasn't sure what a cap
> de
More info for people looking from the same vantage point as me..
This document is something I am about to read.. (I wasn't sure what a cap
device in linux was, this was the most relevant google result.)
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/
as a person who has spent the last three years exclusively in
user-level filesystems on Linux, I can safely say this -- my biggest
problem during that time has been the root user. from dealing with
programs which allow only root-level access (xen tools) to dealing
with programs who explicitly disal
>something like extended attributes can be accomplished by layering file
>servers.
or simply make a directory
I'm familiar with MS's definition of SIP, but what's this definition?
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> i couldn't work out which hardware, usable by Asterix, could be
> driven by another system instead.
>
>
Again, if it were possible to lose more faith in the gov't and the american
lemmings, I would have.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:24 PM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> All these days I've been reading off-topic stuff on 9fans were worth
> it because of this thread.
>
>
As a guy researching to possibly re-write the book, torrent? :P Yeah, off
line reading gives depth online doesn't offer.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Thomas wrote:
>
> As a guy who first read the book around 40 years ago, I can endorse the
> recommendation.
>
> -tom
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, a
one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting
2011/7/2 Robert Seaton :
> Hello, 9fans!
> ...
23 matches
Mail list logo
