From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lyndon@orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:42:28 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] Charles Forsyth on putting Unix on a diet. In-Reply-To: <921D6FFC-DD60-406F-B90E-EC40DB638624@orthanc.ca> References: <20171027103648.4030118C08A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20171028020100.26A50156E7D7@mail.bitblocks.com> <921D6FFC-DD60-406F-B90E-EC40DB638624@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: <34B45923-EA5D-47C9-BF73-90AECEB87171@orthanc.ca> > On Oct 27, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > But if you try to turn Plan9 into a lean UNIX, you lose everything that Plan9 advocates. In particular, I don't see how you can possibly integrate namespaces into UNIX in any meaningful way. Without those, it's no longer Plan9, and therefore a pointless endeavour. But as a thought experiment, I have long wondered how one might approach the UNIX kernel with the view of removing ioctl(2). What would the aftermath look like? That's probably the most invasive attack Plan9 could take on UNIX. It would be very interesting to see what falls out. It might be practical to attempt this with 10th Edition, just to see ... --lyndon