From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0a9251a697fa022cbcd23cd7d1b9006c@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:34:57 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906101839480.12746@tank.cs.indiana.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] critique of sockets API
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 09421224-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed Jun 10 18:52:19 EDT 2009, bpisupat@cs.indiana.edu wrote:
>
> > Did you do this on Plan 9 or bring some of the filesystem sanity of another OS?
>
> Actually my work was based on 9P based synthetic filesystems
> implemented using Npfs (see
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcb7zf48_503q8j84)
>
> These filesystems resided in resource constrained embedded devices which
> could not run Plan 9 in whole.
>
>

do you have a comparison to other similar projects like

1. styx on a brick
	http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/rcx_paper.html
2. 9p for imbedded devices
	http://iwp9.inf.uth.gr/iwp9_proceedings08.pdf

and or other information on your work?  in particular,
what hardware are you using?

- erik