From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <017301c2ce26$d62b0d60$4ef0b487@bl.belllabs.com>
From: "Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan" <dharani@lucent.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <20030206201354.8681.qmail@mail.dirac.net>
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 16:29:31 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52daa69e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Hi,

> > I wouldnt worry about the 10% performance difference between Plan 9
> > implementation and FreeBSD or Linux. What matters is whether we can
> > tolerate the performance loss. As long as my apps like acme, sam,
charon,
> > etc run sufficiently fast, why would I worry?
>
> > > We know Plan 9 has the better design, code, capabilities, etc. It
would
> > > be nice at some point to be able to say that speed is a distinguishing
> > > feature of Plan 9. Is it fundamentally impossible?
>
> This is an important issue if we want Plan 9 to be more widely deployed.
I guess that not many users care about 10% differences in performance - but
if Plan 9 is (say) three times slower than Unix, its user base will always
be limited.

The strengths of Plan 9 should be the reason for wide deployment instead of
performance figures. Things like venti, fossil, factotum and revved up
graphics module are excellent additions to Plan 9 in the recent time. I
would like to see these kind of enhancements to Plan 9 rather than racing
with other OS'es in terms of performance. Of course, if someone can cleanly
modify the code for some critical performance improvement, thats fine.
Otherwise, let us not try to make Plan 9 another *nux* or *BSD.

IMHO.

Regards
dharani

PS: The opinions are just mine, not company's.