From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Stalker To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Glendix? In-reply-to: <5d375e920711130839m1e2b9515i4f17d6f9c352772a@mail.gmail.com> References: <47396E4D.6020005@kix.in> <20071113133024.E01902F82@okapi.maths.tcd.ie> <5d375e920711130839m1e2b9515i4f17d6f9c352772a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11759.1194976081.1@maths.tcd.ie> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:48:01 +0000 Message-Id: <20071113174801.A68EE2F82@okapi.maths.tcd.ie> Topicbox-Message-UUID: f807503e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > That would make sense if NetBSD had private namespaces and 9P support. I think this is fixable without enormous effort if you are willing to let the BSD applications lose most of the benefits of having plan9 around. The way ABI emulation works you need to intercept system calls in any case and, as I noted before, the emulators NetBSD already has catch calls to open and show them a modified hierarchy. It would not be too difficult to make that modified hierarchy potentially different for each process. What you lose is that only plan9 applications would get the benefits of private name spaces, not native applications. Still, you would get something a lot better than running plan9 under qemu in a virtual terminal, which is what I find myself doing a lot lately. -- John Stalker School of Mathematics Trinity College Dublin tel +353 1 896 1983 fax +353 1 896 2282