From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:30:00 -1000 From: Tim Newsham To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] First-timer help In-Reply-To: <451fd5c15dde48affa20a0c323f68847@terzarima.net> Message-ID: References: <451fd5c15dde48affa20a0c323f68847@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6ccc78ca-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > using VM/386 to multiplex window sessions is rather like virtualising the > Unix system call layer to allow several IP stacks. it seems just > a little heavy-handed. there is actually little difference between > multi-user cpu servers and single-user terminals as far as the plan 9 kernel is concerned: > mainly configuration and a few small policy differences. I don't think he was suggesting a seperate DomU per user, but rather a seperate (virtual) graphics device per user. I think the xen approach will be to use the VNC protocol to provide access to DomU graphics. I don't see why multiple VNC's couldnt be supported. > the host owner (/dev/hostowner) owns all devices, including cap(3), > which works well in existing use `as intended', but for non-overlapping shared > use of a single-user terminal would probably require something > to set hostowner when it switches to a given user's session. Why not just change permissions on the various devices that a user would want to access (ie. mouse, video and audio). Or probably better -- just multiplex these and provide a virtual device. How hard would it be to make a generic multiplexer that took in a filesystem prototype file and then virtualized access to each of the devices for a number of children processes? > the more serious problem is that there isn't a good paint program. Nor internet chess client ;-) Tim Newsham http://www.lava.net/~newsham/