From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] First-timer help Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:12:31 -0700 From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> In-Reply-To: <451fd5c15dde48affa20a0c323f68847@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6b10f22c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 would aan + drawterm be a solution? > 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. > > if each user is given a rio session, much as martin suggested, > and it has its own name space (as with newns) > it will use its own attach to the file server, and > thus run with the desired file permissions. > > /dev/user can be set using cap(3). > > 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. > > the draw devices would all change ownership too, but if that makes > things too open (because the current user can see all window contents), > then it probably isn't hard to record ownership on draw directories > (as for /net/tcp directories and a few other devices). > > the more serious problem is that there isn't a good paint program.