From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <123d24e6f76185865dc30ead0ec3ab89@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:29:47 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <20080628152138.4217D1E8C35@holo.morphisms.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ca4c9770-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> I haven't looked at anything at all, but I've also never seen such a
>> happy reception on this list.  Please excuse the possible stupidity of
>> this question: is a Plan 9 port feasible?
>
> Not with Plan 9 as it stands right now.  The virtual memory
> system is really not set up for page-at-a-time mappings
> like 9vx needs, and there's no facility to create new segment
> descriptors, though that would be easier to fix.  One also
> wonders what use it would be.  You could just start a new
> shell and fiddle with its name space instead.

I'm sure I risk making a total fool of myself here, seeing as I don't
know anything about VX, nevermind 9vx.  But I am of the opinion that
Plan 9 is still preferable as a platform on which to do virtualisation
and the ability to run a VX port on Plan 9 may be the trigger for
other OSes to follow.  And if that is totally off the mark, don't
bother reading the rest of my post, just put me out of your misery :-)

There are two possible errors in my speculations: firstly that having
VX capabilities over Plan 9 isn't sufficient to provide a
virtualisation environment for, say Linux (as I say, I'm really
shooting in the dark here, feel free to educate me) and secondly that
Plan 9's elegance will not have the appeal I would expect.  Russ'
technical reservations are real enough, but not unsurmountable.

++L