From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3EC57B49.8010403@ameritech.net> From: northern snowfall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020518 Netscape6/6.2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts? References: <7f3c0429076f59dc5ba8e3513802d2d6@collyer.net> <3EC57959.9020409@ameritech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:59:05 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: af198b50-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > I wrote patches to quash these issues > in plan9 revision 3 and had good success with it. Though, I've > not looked at the differences in the network code from 3 to 4, so, > I wouldn't know how my patches would be relevant now. As an addendum, it should be noted that these constraints make plan9 look less and less like plan9 and more and more like a UNIX superuser environment. Which, gives me a strange desire to design a 9p network amendment, seperating the actual network code to a single network server. So, now, instead of just a CPU Auth and FS, you'd also have a Net. Imports might actually make this desirable, allowing a single administrator to maintain each fragment of a complete virtual operating system. It might be possible to hack in more support for a "firewall" or other things using this kind of scheme. Don