From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  3 Jul 2011 07:55:45 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <bd59fd5eff12d32ae9421352dd56c2e3@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c>
References: <BANLkTin9RO2YeBcNM8gbcNHG7G1xPHH5vA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=Cic53c+jpgQPt6MiA2vPVNH+-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHwi9bxG_=kJSeKNn4iD_OewWu5HQB7zEisgpLbNWQNRBwu7Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<201107022036.52943.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f94c010c-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I know bloated GNU projects are generally frowned upon, but I think
> it's quite interesting that GNOME's GVFS allows, afaict, per-process
> synthetic filesystems. But clearly that's extremely ugly compared to
> Plan 9.

and yet there's a key difference.  this is a private joke amongst gnome
processes.  i can give "file" references to gnome programs like http://example.com
to a gnome proc.  cat(1) won't accept the same reference.  i don't know
how the underpinings work, but i would imagine ls -l http://example.com would
result in some hilarity.  the worst bit is there's no sense of a global name space.
http:// feels all vms-ey.

- erik