Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[rog@vitanuova.com]

> 	Thank you for the explaination. Anyway it would be interesting to
> 	get DIS bytecode interpreter running under Plan9 directly, not
> 	under 'hosted'('emu') Inferno. And may be to have limbo-to-C
> 	translator or similar.

a lot of the usefulness of limbo comes from the fact that it runs
within inferno - the language itself is only part of the limbo
equation.

that said, i'd like to see inferno working more closely with plan 9 on
lots of things (e.g. plumbing, draw model) because they are so closely
related, which means that less translation has to go on at the
Inferno-OS transition. i don't think you'd gain a lot by running the
Dis VM without inferno. however, i suppose there might be a place for a
Limbo to C translator, sacrificing some of Limbo's portability for
speed. it'd be a fair amount of work though.

> 	And please would you or anybody else explain me how different are
> 	Styx and 9P protocols ? Do they need certain adaptors or they may
> 	interoperate right out of the box ?

as far as i'm aware, the main difference between styx and 9p is in the
authentication protocols (there are a few differences in the file
permission bits as well, plus the message numbering is different).
styx does authentication once for a connection - the authentication
happens at a different level to the styx protocol (and hence can be
used to authenticate things other than styx connections). it is also
potentially more secure, as encryption can be negotiated as well as
user authentication.

9p does individual authentication of users on a single connection,
which i guess in principal means that someone intercepting the
connection could "steal" a fid (e.g. by destroying a Tclunk in transit)
and use that to pretend to be some other user.

i think there are still some issues to resolve in styx regarding exactly
what a user "is".

  rog. (my views, not vita nuova's)