On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Uriel <urie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:27 PM, David Leimbach<leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/13/09, erik quanstrom <quans...@coraid.com> wrote: > >>> we don't use te*xt for 9p, do we? > >> > >> the difference being, 9p is the transport not > >> the representation of the data and 9p has > >> a fixed set of messages. > >> > > > > Also 9p aims at file systems pretty obviously where Thirft is a > > generic RPC mechanism with stub compilers for bindings for several > > languages. > > > > I have not been able to convince coworkers that filesystem namespaces > > are the way to go. I think they think it is too hard. > > > > *shrug* you can lead a horse... > > Funny, the problem I usually have is that people think file systems > are *too simple*, oh, no data types other than *byte stream* and > *drectory*, and no type checking! We are all going to die! >
Interestingly enough, people dealing with management of servers have been using stuff like SMASH CLP, which uses commands like "cd" and "show", which may as well have been "cd" or "ls" to access system resources. I'm talking about smart power strips from Raritan, which have power monitoring and control per receptacle. So really, a lot of the things I do like about plan 9 are just nearly there in the wild in some cases, and feel quite natural. The next step is to make a generic CLP filesystem that speaks 9p :-). Might be fun, but I don't have an extra 600 dollars for a power strip right now :-) > > People seem to have trouble believing something simple can do a job > that they have convinced themselves needs to be very complicated. > Seems like in some cases people still do want the simplicity of filesystem access. So perhaps we're not entirely screwed yet. :-) Dave > > uriel > >
