From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6efdb74d50a095dd019ef975607c19d4@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:34:56 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] rx - wot no stderr?
In-Reply-To: <df3ead9fb0547531720b87f46821951f@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0682accc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Jan 19 20:17:18 EST 2007, steve@quintile.net wrote:
> > if you are talking to a plan 9 server, stderr already works:
>
> I don'r believe it does in the way I mean. The server-side of cpu opens
> /mnt/term/dec/cons for stdout and again for stderr so you cannot run a remote
> program, and locally redirect its stdout and stderr (without using a
> temporary file in a shared file space for one or t'other as already mentioned.
>

you're right.  my example is flawed.  here's a better illustration of what's going
on:

	cpu% cpu -c echo fu '>[1=2]' ';' echo bar >[2=]
	fu
	bar

- erik