Re: [dev] How about sta.li ? - libc tangent

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:35:56 +0100
Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57_AT_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
> 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. I called this Under9. Under9 is distinct from Glendix
> in that Glendix is Linux-specific, which doesn't make me happy and
> appears make more work for the maintainers. Under9 ought to work with
> any kernel the libc has been ported to. Also, Under9 need not try to
> load Plan 9 format binaries if that turns out to be inefficient.

I've wished for a standalone 9P multiplexer, too, but I don't think it
would be useful: the ‘dup device’ (/dev/fd/#) and /proc need to be
integrated with whatever takes the place of the OS kernel.

Robert Ransom