Your LLM is lying to you. Unfortunately, since this got through to the mailing list, you're now misleading people.
For anyone reading this -- the message is simply wrong, and anything in it should be ignored. On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 14:09:02 +0900 "thales.of.miletus" <[email protected]> wrote: > That is a good question. In many cases, it is true that you > can rebind /bin using commands such as: > > bind /bin /oldbin > bind /newbin /bin > > This works when the namespace is fully under the user’s > control. Plan 9’s namespace model supports it well. > > However, this assumes a standalone setup. False. It works perfectly in both a standalone and distributed setup, and in fact, the distributed setup depends on this working. > Plan 9 was not designed as a local UNIX replacement. It was > designed as a distributed operating system. In that context, > things work differently. No, they work exactly the same in both local and distributed contexts. You're simply incorect here. > On a terminal booted from a file server, /bin may be > mounted read-only from a remote CPU server. In that case, the > user cannot rebind it. That's false. A user, in fact, must be able to re-bind it in order for the login scripts shipped with the system to work. > Even if permitted, doing so may conflict with shared > system policies. Also false. > There are also cases where tools exist in user-specific > locations, or arrive later via mounts that are not part of > the initial boot namespace. Yes, which is why you need to be able to bind in new resources. Having binds fail means that your tools in user-specific locations, > In such cases, changing $path is the correct and intended > solution. It affects only the current shell or script. It > preserves namespace integrity and avoids system-wide impact. Did you forget that Plan 9 has namespaces? Scripts routinely run in their own private namespace. > At the core is a design question. As the administrator, do > you want to use Plan 9 *as Plan 9*, or do you want to use it > *as a UNIX*? You seem to be confused. When was the last time you used a Plan 9 system? For what? You're advocating ignoring the Plan 9 features. > Plan 9 encourages private namespaces, per-process resources, > and distributed services. Its shell tools, including $path, > support that model. > > If you treat Plan 9 as a traditional single-machine system, > you may overlook features designed for a distributed world. WTF. > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 6:20 AM Frank D. Engel, Jr. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Interesting... always learning something new. > > > > However, how do you wind up in a situation in which you can't change /bin? > > > > > > Worst case couldn't you just: > > > > bind /bin /oldbin > > > > bind /newbin /bin > > > > ? > > > > -- Ori Bernstein <[email protected]> ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tb55aa78014f11ae0-M417fb73444999747390c424a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
