Re: [9fans] long long whining

Re: [9fans] long long whining

[anothy]

// Also, heard of Hurd?

i can't tell if this is a rhetorical question or not, but if not, it's quite
funny (unless the name is just an amazing coincidence...). see:
	http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/docs.html
in particular, the name attached to the first paper.
ア

Re: [9fans] long long whining

[James A. Robinson]

On skimming the article, he says that on one hand any BSD developer is
going to tell you that a transparent ftp client doesn't belong in the
kernel. He writes "in a sense, this is correct," but then proceeds to
argue that such "design methodology (which is based on preventing users
from changing things they don't like) is being used to prevent system
designers from making things better."  I don't follow what he's trying
to say.

How is a user level transparent ftp client going to be worse than a
system level transparent ftp client?  The per-process namespace that the
Plan 9 folks developed made transparent ftp clients and other services
very flexible.  I'm not clear what the argument for such services in a
micro kernel would be.  But this is probably too off-topic, and rob is
going to yell at us soon.


Jim

Re: [9fans] long long whining

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

jim.robinson@stanford.edu (James A. Robinson) writes:

> On skimming the article, he says that on one hand any BSD developer is
> going to tell you that a transparent ftp client doesn't belong in the
> kernel. He writes "in a sense, this is correct," but then proceeds to
> argue that such "design methodology (which is based on preventing users
> from changing things they don't like) is being used to prevent system
> designers from making things better."  I don't follow what he's trying
> to say.

That BSD will probably never have a transparent ftp client.

> How is a user level transparent ftp client going to be worse than a
> system level transparent ftp client?  The per-process namespace that the
> Plan 9 folks developed made transparent ftp clients and other services
> very flexible.  I'm not clear what the argument for such services in a
> micro kernel would be.  But this is probably too off-topic, and rob is
> going to yell at us soon.

I have no objection to the Plan 9 way, certainly.  I never said a user
level transparent FTP client is worse than a system level one.  

Putting one in the *kernel* is architecturally bad.

For Plan 9, and the Hurd, this is still true, but we have a perfectly
good way (a better way!) than putting it in the kernel.

At the time that article was written, BSD had no such way.

Thomas

Re: [9fans] long long whining

[Boyd Roberts]

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> At the time that article was written, BSD had no such way.

I read 1996.  4.3BSD had the DEADFS and ample functionality
to do a file-system switch (well, they told us 'we already
got one... it's very nice') as early as 1991-1992.

Re: [9fans] long long whining

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

boyd@strakt.com (Boyd Roberts) writes:

> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > At the time that article was written, BSD had no such way.
> 
> I read 1996.  4.3BSD had the DEADFS and ample functionality
> to do a file-system switch (well, they told us 'we already
> got one... it's very nice') as early as 1991-1992.

BSD had the ability to put one *in* the kernel.  Not out of, except by
hacks like using the NFS protocol.

Thomas

Q [Re: [9fans] long long whining]

[ozan s yigit]

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> writes:

> For Plan 9, and the Hurd, this is still true, but we have a perfectly
> good way (a better way!) than putting it in the kernel.

since you mention both in the same breath, i'm curious what ideas, if any
you borrow from plan9 for the current(?) version. i see some bits and
pieces of work from roland mcgrath, but no indication of any important
architectural work. anything happened since 1.2 that in any way
relates to plan9?

oz
-- 
One o'clock pee em! Hello, Insert Name Here! -- The Dis-organizer

Re: Q [Re: [9fans] long long whining]

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

ozan s yigit <oz@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:

> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> writes:
> 
> > For Plan 9, and the Hurd, this is still true, but we have a perfectly
> > good way (a better way!) than putting it in the kernel.
> 
> since you mention both in the same breath, i'm curious what ideas, if any
> you borrow from plan9 for the current(?) version. i see some bits and
> pieces of work from roland mcgrath, but no indication of any important
> architectural work. anything happened since 1.2 that in any way
> relates to plan9?

The basic architecture is pretty much fixed.  There wasn't a great
deal of conscious borrowing from Plan 9 in designing the architecture,
but both share the property of putting filesystems outside the kernel
and making them able to easily support all the various file system
operations.

I first thought of these ideas when I was working for UNM, in
conversations with Lee Ward there, in the late 1980s.  I don't know
whether he had been familiar with Plan 9 [or other work at Bell Labs]
or not, but I was not at the time.

Thomas