From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60602011649y2896f4baxf30b9b4db82268e6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:49:03 -0800 From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Van Jacobsen's network stack restructure In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: edcab036-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 2/1/06, 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 readin= g 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 co= mpletely > > wrong. > > > > And even if it's not, /net makes it easy to put the IP stack in user sp= ace 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 w= ith > > something like /net? ;) >