My Chrome flags this site as not secure, but it doesnt tell me why which is strange.<p>EDIT: Looking at it, chrome seems to hide all security info about sites now and only display a generic 'Not Secure' badge for anything. This is a very awkward change and removes lots of convenience when troubleshooting random sites.<p>Still, the site needs to fix its SSL certificate.
The web(html) is a hierarchical system and as such it's proper place in the world is mapped to the filesystem.<p>Which is honestly what I thought plan9's webfs <a href="https://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/4/webfs" rel="nofollow">https://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/4/webfs</a> did and then you could use the filesystem api to parse it. But alas, I actually read the man page to double check, and it looks like it does the much more sane option and just fetches web resources(http), I am crushed.<p>But it may be a fun weekend project to see if that mapping could be done and where it fails. So not a complete loss.
Hah, I had somewhat similar plan, but based on the concept of FIFO (named pipes) and the Unix tool `mkfifo`, so I built <a href="https://mkfifo.com" rel="nofollow">https://mkfifo.com</a> to make it easier for people to build pipes instead of shell commands.<p>There are also a few FIFOs there that works like rclone, using my own `rfetch` library.<p>Still a WIP though.
Sort of related, I had the dubious pleasure of using CMS(an IBM mainframe operating syste/userenviroment) for a while and it had an interesting take on pipes, fabulously overengineered. <a href="https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSB27U_7.1.0/com.ibm.zvm.v710.zvmappl/c2462521.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSB27U_7.1.0/com.ibm.zvm.v710.zv...</a><p>Making the natural comparison to unix pipes. I would say CMS pipes were better for complex pipe lines, the primitive names actually made sense and no need for that awkward setup stage on unix where named pipes need to live on the filesystem. But for simple pipes the unix syntax... felt better? Looking back on that manual now, simple cms pipes look fine, I don't remember why I felt they were worse than unix pipes.<p>Anyhow it is an interesting alternate take on what pipes could be.
(2015). Connect to g+!<p>Very much a fan of this, of the 9p life. What times seeing a shell on the web with 9p access!<p>9p is very shell coded, as we see here, but I also really want to imagine going further. I want to imagine apps and systems that interoperate via small fine grained files. As a scripting environment, I really hope it's easy and fun for programs and now llms to look at and alter state, to work other systems, and 9p feels like it is rallying around a core truth that's there all the time just more of it, more files. Instead of descending beyond the os into deeper datastructures like toml.<p>A downside is that now you need lots of kernel syscalls to talk to all the files. That alas has not, historically, been performant.
Yep... their Github was last updated 11 years ago (which would also explain the SSL warnings).<p><a href="https://github.com/pigshell/pigshell/commit/9ad32ce83b7191e86e9cd086518aaf4798d6e1e4" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/pigshell/pigshell/commit/9ad32ce83b7191e8...</a>
committed on Aug 24, 2015<p>Still, I'm a fan of the style. Today, it would probably be an LLM interface to resources, but how much fun would a web shell be?
Pigshell explores taking plan9 to the next level.