[TUHS] If not Linux, then what?
lm at mcvoy.com
Wed Aug 28 09:33:38 AEST 2019
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:16:18PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:40:02 -0700 Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> Larry McVoy writes:
> > and I can tell you that sockets are WAY WAY better. I get the "it
> > should have just been file I/O" except that I don't. I tried to
> > write a library that let you open up /net/tcp/$host:$port and do
> > I/O like it was a file descriptor. That works for a lot of stuff
> > but I ran into problems quickly. A networking connection is not
> > a file handle. You can make some stuff work but I couldn't figure
> > out how to do all of it. You end up having to do ioctls to handle
> > the stuff that doesn't fit well into the file system name space.
> > I think plan 9 did this sort of thing, maybe Rob can prove me wrong
> > or remember where it didn't match.
> Plan9 does a decent enough job.
> cpu% ls /net/tcp
> cpu% ls /net/tcp/1
I dunno. I can't look at that and know what it means. So it means I have
to toss (by the time this came out) a decade or more worth of knowing how
to use sockets and learn this new model that may or may not go anywhere.
> plan9 would've been a big improvement over *BSD or Linux. But
> I think a conceptual merge was needed between some sane
> version of Unix and plan9 so as to not throw out all the dusty
That would have made a huge difference. The problem with Unix is it
is largely good enough. All sorts of warts appeared over the years
but you can get your job done. Plan 9 was such a big departure that
it never gained traction. Having it conform to Posix or pick the
most popular Unix (SunOS? BSD?) and conform to that. I'm biased but
even if I wasn't I'd have picked SunOS, virtually all open source back
in the day compiled out of the tarball on SunOS. Everyone else had
to tinker or run configure or whatever.
More information about the TUHS