From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d375e920708101202n57951c60i438f4db736d51679@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:02:13 +0200
From: Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
To: weigelt@metux.de,
	"Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P vs. FUSE
In-Reply-To: <20070810123336.GG18939@nibiru.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070810114225.GF18939@nibiru.local>
	<2d66a95ea087868174cfdc519a48a2d7@9netics.com>
	<20070810123336.GG18939@nibiru.local>
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4e11f70-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> BTW: I'm still interested in functional differences between
> FUSE and 9P. For example, does 9P support all *nix style
> inode types (ie. symlinks, devices, pipes, etc) ?

As others have noted, no. And that is a feature, the whole point of 9P
is that all files are equal, and doing away with abominations like
symlinks, device nodes and ioctls.

The only good thing about FUSE is that it confirms that the lunix
people have not learned anything in the last thirty years.

uriel