From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <1536241071.2844369.1498804520.321D1E43@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Ethan Gardener To: 9fans@9fans.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In-Reply-To: <20180906003258.9A428156E400@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <20180906003258.9A428156E400@mail.bitblocks.com> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 14:37:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e197153a-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Sep 6, 2018, at 1:32 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:42:52 -0400 Chris McGee wrote: > > Could you get away with a much simpler, smaller hardware design and still > > run Plan 9 in a reasonable way? Maybe one side of the software/hardware > > divide has to take on more complexity to help simplify the other side? > > Look at what Prof. Nicklaus Wirth did for Oberon. > https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html Oh I'd forgotten about Oberon! I started to look at it years ago, but assumed it was more complex than it actually is. It's hard to believe primary development only lasted 4 years. My point of contact with it was an OpenGL application with innovative culling of hidden objects. It was perfectly smooth, no latency; not bad for an operating system roughly in the same class as Inferno. One to put back on my to-do list. >>From the preface of P.O.System.pdf > In spite of the small number of man-years spent on > realizing the Oberon System, and in spite of its > compactness letting its description fit a single book, it > is not an academic toy, but rather a versatile > workstation system that has found many satisfied > and even enthusiastic users in academia and > industry. -- The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. -- Chaucer