From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 08:51:07 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <470bed538001f060860c2cf551ec838b@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: References: <201107022036.52943.dexen.devries@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f95d23b0-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun Jul 3 08:34:26 EDT 2011, cls@lubutu.com wrote: > On 3 July 2011 12:55, erik quanstrom wrote: > > and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome > > processes.  i can give "file" references to gnome programs like http://example.com > > to a gnome proc.  cat(1) won't accept the same reference. > > Well yes, it would only make sense in an OS which only uses GIO, > rather than standard Unix IO. what i was trying to say is that even in that case, i think gio is a weak model. it goes back to the vms/dos days where the method of access becomes part of the name. that is, i need to know if it's accessed via http or ftp or local to access a file. further, i can't have a path like /usr/quanstro/remote/http://my.other.site/some/path. i have to attach devices at the root. and i'm pretty sure i can't modify what's accessable without recompiling everything that uses the gnome vfs stuff. in short, it's more a clumsy hack than an i/o model. plan 9 has better answers in all three cases, despite being much older. - erik