From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0f1fee4b1152f4a6e32e0dd8c5c11acd@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:40:55 -0600
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] [OT] linux origins, why not?
In-Reply-To: <442B3496.9060308@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25e68da0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

do you have some pointers to papers from these guys?

from my uneducated position, it seems to me that plan9 has a large
percentage of what microkernels claim.  one thing one can't
do is write a hardware driver that lives in userspace.  one advantage
of this could be the ability to load drivers depending on configuration.

has anybody invested some brain cells in this?

- erik

On Wed Mar 29 19:37:48 CST 2006, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> Lots of good research came out of mach ... not what you think. sandia
> national labs has done lots of great OS work for 10 years, or so,
> spurred on by the unusable Mach-derived OSF-1/MK-AD that came on their
> paragon, and the need to toss it and start clean. SNL did some very nice
> work, all due to the need to get rid of the "micro kernel".
>
> ron