From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <001d01c2ce04$be41f5a0$4ef0b487@bl.belllabs.com>
From: "Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan" <dharani@lucent.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302061009080.11322-100000@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  6 Feb 2003 12:25:28 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 51dcf4cc-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Hi,

> > I like the approach that believes CPU cycles can be bought cheaper than
> > developer minutes.
>
> that's fine if your idea of the world is developer minutes. But there's
> this other thing called "the guys who pay the bill minutes", i.e.
> (l)users, and they are less willing to take slower systems.
Yeah, I agree that for a real production system, Plan 9 solution may not be
as attractive as *nux* or *BSD. But then I think one can improve the
performance by using real good hadware parts and careful system architecture
(say, a good distributed architecture with a good network of machines).

> Anyway, I am not taking exception to the decisions behind Plan 9 *in it's
> current state*, I am merely asking: now that we have a model for an OS
> that looks like a far better model than what *nux* offers, can we speed
> that OS up to be competitive without destroying it? Or is what we have
> about as good as it will get?
Can you say which part of the system needs improvement? File System?
Networking? And can you also give more details on the particular area?

Regards
dharani