> So essentially there shouldn't be a problem with mounting on a single > "public" namespace namespaces are not public in the sense that they are visible to all processes. > as long as there is one user on the system. since this started out as a discussion of terminals, i should point out that terminals by definition have a single user at a time. > This is classic. Complication is a sign of maturation. Plan 9 has evaded > that by not maturing, by avoiding diversification. Before you get angry I > must say that's my "personal" opinion. Nothing I'm going to "force" unto > you. Nothing I _can_ force unto you. equally one could say complication is a sign that one's vision was lacking; a sign that one's system lacks generality. if you call the opposite of complication immaturity, i'll be proud to have an operating system that suffers from it. > How does that differ from presenting of a network interface by a block > device on UNIX? And why should avoiding system calls be considered an > advantage? Your VFS layer could do anything expected from /net provided > that file system abstraction for the resources represented under /net is > viable in the first place. i'm not sure what passes for unix these days, but linux at least does not present network interfaces as block devices. there is no /dev/eth0. > The VFS approach is by no means inferior to Plan 9's everything-is-a-file, what do you mean by this? the VFS is a kernel interface along the general lines of plan 9's devtab. everything-is-a-file[server] is a general principle. > but on UNIX systems it is limited to resources that can be meaningfully > represented as file systems. so why is the network hidden in side channels in adjunct namespaces? - erik