From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <871yitfkle.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <20011119214624.912781998A@mail.cse.psu.edu>, <200111192359.fAJNxvG63915@devil.lucid> Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:28:51 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 255f6b10-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 matt@proweb.co.uk (Matt) writes: > http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1782/ddj0112a/0112a.htm > > "Working from publicly available documents, I've built an implementation of > the Plan 9 filesystem protocol and tested its user-mode components on > FreeBSD, Solaris, SunOS, and Linux. I have also written a kernel-mode virtual > filesystem (VFS) that runs on Linux." Is the subject incorrect though? It's cool to have a port of the Plan 9 FS protocol to Linux (et al), but it seems to me that would be a different task from private namespaces.