Re: [9fans] Van Jacobsen's network stack restructure

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

On 2/1/06, quanstro@quanstro.net <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> c'mon. linux has consistently gone the other way on this issue.
> linux doesn't even have a device node for network interfaces.
>
> i don't know anything about the reasoning for this. efficiency?
> support for a static /dev? i don't know.
>

The bash shell supports /dev/tcp.... kind of evil but you can make
connections and send strings via file redirection with it.

Dave

>
> - erik
>
> On Wed Feb  1 11:50:33 CST 2006, uriel@cat-v.org wrote:
> > > anyone seen this?
> > >
> > > http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/vj/
> > Yes quite interesting, and here is a nice writeup:
> > http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2006/01/27
> >
> > > i don't know if his methods have any application to Plan 9, since the
> > > Plan 9 IP stack doesn't seem to have the lineage of the linux and bsd
> > > stacks. i am not intimate with the IP stack code, but it might bear a
> > > lookover.
> > >From the very little I know about our IP stack(which comes from reading Nemo's
> > excellent commentary on the 3rd edition kernel source), we might be not too
> > far from a design similar to what is described there, but I might be completely
> > wrong.
> >
> > And even if it's not, /net makes it easy to put the IP stack in user space without
> > having to change a single line of application code. Ah, the more I deal with
> > Plan 9, the more I love it :)
> >
> > Maybe we should try to convince those lunix people to replace sockets with
> > something like /net? ;)
>