From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <10fff12b936142101bc1cb597fd73565@coraid.com> From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Glendix? In-Reply-To: <5d375e920711130849w17055023s8c47f3c9b5b5e864@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: f7c3c4d6-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > i am reminded by a line from the labs' response to ast's usenix posting > > - UNIX can be successfully run as an application program > > `Run' perhaps, `successfully' no. Name a product that succeeds > > by running UNIX as an application. > > > > s/UNIX/Plan 9/g > > I love that post, but I don't think s/UNIX/Plan 9/g is valid, we are > not talking about microkernels here, and see also Inferno. i'm not saying it can't be done. osx is *nix run as an application on a bastardized mach kernel. but "microkernel" is an empty nonsequitor. what i am saying is that the glue layer is going to be huge. and like mach needed to be compromized to run osx well, linux will need to be hacked to run plan 9 well. and personally, i don't see the appeal. you've been the most vocal opponent of layering goo like this. - erik