On Jan 14, 2008 9:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking about the same thing for quite some time now (and > don't you suspect that I have any real suggestions here, more like a > bunch of pet peeves). I guess my personal feeling of cognitive > dissonance comes from the fact that I can do pretty much anything in > Plan9 in a more or less simple shell script, but I can't easily "share" > the service of the shell scripts via namespace abstraction.
in fact, in inferno at least, one can do a reasonable amount with sh-file2chan(1), memfs(1), bind(1) and export(1). it's good for putting things together on an ad hoc basis, at any rate. for a plan 9 example, pipefile(1) is a tiny program that is constructed similarly - the bugs section says it "should be rewritten to be a user-level file system". the problem is that if that was done, it would be probably three times the size. there's such a step change from the small (but useful) things that can be thrown together out of existing parts to writing a full-blown file server. it's probably a pipe dream, but every time i launch into the grunge work involved in writing a proper file server, i find myself wishing there was something a little more straightforward.
