[9fans] Re: Anyone still running plan9?

[Scott Schwartz schwartz@finch.cse.psu.edu]

Brandon Black <photon@nol.net> writes:
| In response yo this all the other responses that went like "Much too
| difficult, you must not have looked at this before", I have looked.  It
| would be very painful.  Implementing per-process namespace would only be a
| third of the work, compared to hacking the rest of the system to make it
| continue to work (like the security example).  You'd have to change the
| whole security paradigm.

Doesn't QNX have a lot of the functionality of Plan 9?  [Unlike some
people, they don't have manpages on the web so I can't check. :)] I
guess it really helps if posix is an optional subsystem.