> > personally, i feel it would be more useful to be > > able to use plan 9's native network stack. but > > i'm biased. i want to send aoe/cec/il packets. > > > > Part of the reason I have not stopped using lguest, although now I use > both 9vx and lguest. > > You could write a plan 9 device for vx that drives raw frames to linux > I suppose.
i was trying to say that was one of two potential ways to go. the question is, which way is 9vx going. or, - is there any reason writing #l for 9vx is not a good idea technically; and - is #l something that might have a chance to become part of 9vx? - erik p.s. wild idea: 9pxevxload.
