From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:50:27 -0400
From: Scott Schwartz schwartz@finch.cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] Re: Anyone still running plan9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 60895f90-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19970829155027.g0K30gmvpP-CGbmXsGHj7otsC4i-5jIF87hDsUltIrI@z>

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.