From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:28:21 -0500
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] fuse bashing
Message-ID: <20060123232821.GO25435@augusta.math.psu.edu>
References: <20060123170614.07D331E8C37@holo.morphisms.net>
	<43D5123E.1070001@lanl.gov>
	<3e1162e60601231231r5e95b657x99e9070d17802734@mail.gmail.com>
	<43D53D9F.90702@lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43D53D9F.90702@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4777618-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:33:35PM -0700, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> The big complaints I know of so far on 9P are
> 
> - there is no posix file locking (sorry, but people want it) although 
> the 'only allow one open at a time' is a pretty damned good substitute
> 
> - no ACLs (I'm convinced that the stat and wstat could be trivially
> 	extended to support this --- 9p2000.acl)
> 
> - doesn't fit linux vfs semantics too well (just a joke, son, but true
>    too -- sometimes you have to fit a good thing onto a broken thing)
> 
> That's about all I've hit so far. I spent about 5 years hacking on nfs, 
> and I have to say 9p is a way better protocol.

I'm sure some crackhead somewhere has added ``doesn't do readlink or
symlink'' to that list.

	- Dan C.