From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimK+47cC4YZ05824yhg58vAP4sQz2D3mqfE7qHp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eba624e58560ae3fa25ed54905eb7727@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<75ea74312ad96f76de8cd4b3291ffb1d@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTik0LMeWaT5wo2RRWcrzqRz+RX2a_o45UjcFSMgs@mail.gmail.com>
	<d8838076af10656ad31056e8704f034b@chula.quanstro.net>
	<1e4bfd86eef85bbf4434f8ef22b6fed7@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=6P_m+XM7REhYYiLuRft_UccjVj+SoNH8cZNAR@mail.gmail.com>
	<948e9cbd967366d058ac8a033ce93f5f@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=RGkzqgWmwSjxsa3ok4dB+9LTFWJp+DOzz7o=E@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikvbZ0puqG=T01ZB6hSGKPmmzBFByU43oFn43A3@mail.gmail.com>
	<53acf6ebfa4f01bbe09d6ed494ef68b1@plug.quanstro.net>
	<AANLkTi=Ay3MzQ4TZO1uJdnD24Tqv-PbOuMzt4fjb+r8Y@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinT7OKJyhCVh8_5Y0J+d9wtBE8w4yKS1RLa=axQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim7cWNy6t=keucv0gKN+rUDhHA7O8JFh+9ZDMFK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinTA00yUuQKDWfqTH3NDgMDq4b1xmLJEY4Xw4vZ@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik405F5QyOo+amCwMk6_NkRbpZKZb_hvjZy=+Dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=tiVM-irt0L-bqiM-jmpAQ1TU8sz-C2zL9bFFy@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=AEYMTsjmJuen2PzhcErWcjLnj73tdWsPaKCVK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimK+47cC4YZ05824yhg58vAP4sQz2D3mqfE7qHp@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:15:55 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimonyqxozaQ9gD49GUO_xU-BDTLy3R2uMnd=6sd@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] p9p factotum available for plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7bab38e4-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:41 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't really work in multi-account environments where uid on one
>> system doesn't equal uid on the other system. =A0Also introduces
>> potential parse problems.
>
> but names are not guaranteed to be the either, right? I don't see that
> names solve this versus numbers.
>

No, that's true.  I think this is actually a huge open issue for
existing distributed file systems in general and I'm not sure of a
good way around.  Linux (Posix?) does make it much tougher by
insisting that remote files must have owners mappable to the local
numeric uid database.  The asteroid to kill that dinosaur is still in
orbit, let's hope it comes down soon.

>
>
>> Hey man, IIRC you were Lucho's boss when he did the .u implementation
>> -- so it's all your fault :P
>
> I was the guy who never liked it, but I figured you smart guys would
> work it all out :-)
>

What's worse is that it was put in to make you happy!  Your just
trying to dodge blame now.

     -eric