[9fans] Plan9 advancements over Unix

[9fans] Plan9 advancements over Unix

[Bilgehan.Balban]

Hi,

I recently read various papers on 8 1/2, private namespaces and the
like, that are different from unix. Do you think these advancements
over unix were successful?

For example:

- The idea of using files for networking, did this prove superior over
sockets?

- Why was 8 1/2 abandoned? Is it because the graphics is much advanced
over bitmap operations? Does plan9 use Xorg now? I think at least the
idea of having a single private console sounds good.

- Having private namespaces means maintaining a namespace *per-
process*. Would this not be more complicated than having a single one?

Is there a paper that compares or evaluates how well Plan9's new
features performed over Unix?


Thanks,
Bahadir

Re: [9fans] Plan9 advancements over Unix

[Kris Maglione]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 03:01:49PM +0000, Bilgehan.Balban@gmail.com wrote:
>Do you think these advancements over unix were successful?

Why do you think we're here?

>- The idea of using files for networking, did this prove superior over 
>sockets?

That's an understatement.

>- Why was 8 1/2 abandoned? Is it because the graphics is much advanced
>over bitmap operations? Does plan9 use Xorg now? I think at least the
>idea of having a single private console sounds good.

8½ was not abandoned, it was succeeded by rio. They work on the 
same concepts, but rio is designed for the new draw device, and 
lets clients access it directly. Switching to Xorg would cause 
riots.

>- Having private namespaces means maintaining a namespace *per- 
>process*. Would this not be more complicated than having a single one?

You speak in the wrong tense. We do have private namespaces. 
They are different, but not more complicated.

Perhaps you should experiment rather than asking these 
questions.

-- 
Kris Maglione

If you help a friend in need, he is sure to remember
you - the next time he's in need.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan9 advancements over Unix

[erik quanstrom]

> - Why was 8 1/2 abandoned? Is it because the graphics is much advanced
> over bitmap operations? Does plan9 use Xorg now? I think at least the
> idea of having a single private console sounds good.

plan 9 uses rio, which is a decendent of 8½.  plan b, a close relative of plan 9,
uses omero.

> 
> - Having private namespaces means maintaining a namespace *per-
> process*. Would this not be more complicated than having a single one?
>

in principle, each process may have its own namespace.  in practice large
numbers of processes do share the same namespace.

this is simplier than having one global namespace.  one prototypical use
of this in plan 9 is the handling of network stacks.  on plan 9 i can
import the network stack from a gatway that has the access i need and
bind it on /net (the place where ip networking stuff lives).  processes
started in this namespace will do their networking through the gateway,
while other processes in the system are oblivious.

> Is there a paper that compares or evaluates how well Plan9's new
> features performed over Unix?

i don't think plan 9 has new "features".  it's quite different.  "devices"
are implemented by fileservers, for example.  thus it makes not difference
(to the client) if the "device" is in the kernel, in userland or on another
machine.

- erik