From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10707060743r1b45dd1frfe5e65192302d924@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 07:43:30 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Xen 3.1 w/ Plan 9 domU: plan9.img file after install not In-Reply-To: <643819421a900215d67f549ceb50512c@hamnavoe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10707041026u4590977djebab5f1ed29751b7@mail.gmail.com> <643819421a900215d67f549ceb50512c@hamnavoe.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 91e0443c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 7/6/07, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote: > - Does some of the simplicity come from being linux-specific? Comments > say "guest and host run the same kernel". Or is it generic enough to > work with Plan 9 too? it's working up to me calling LHINIT and then LHCRASH. > > - My interest in Xen is pragmatic: there are plenty of hosting companies > offering "virtual servers" based on Xen, and some at least are happy > to let you run a Plan 9 guest kernel. (In particular I can recommend > http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk from personal experience.) How long > before lguest reaches that level of maturity? Sadly, simplicity in > itself is not much of a marketing advantage in the real world. Ah, so keeping a xen port is good. That's fine. But for THX, Xen is just too hard. ron