From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <140e7ec30811110954u44f8f9aeg788dc34b7d35ac69@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:54:39 +0900 From: sqweek To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1226365206.17713.390.camel@goose.sun.com> <29302f743a99f05c1d9ac196b0245f81@9netics.com> <5d375e920811110830k1c91a401y5e6f39f1737d4240@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c215340-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Uriel wrote: >> (Wasn't the disaster of adding .u to p9p a clear enough indication of >> how hopeless that path is?) > > Yes, .u was a disaster which is why the most powerful supercomputer in > the world is using it for workload distribution and boot-time. It was > a failure, that's why its not being integrated into commercial cluster > toolkits. It was a failure, that's why its not the current defacto > standard for Linux paravirtualized file systems. It was a failure, > that's why there's an RDMA protocol instance developed by > third-parties, and that's why its not being looked at being integrated > into mainframes and why IBM is not considering funding a development > team to support it. > > Absolute, complete, utter disaster. Completely hopeless. If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we should be using an XML based protocol extension. -sqweek