From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Consumers? We the eeevil empire are the consumers!
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:54:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17f36dedcf5af9becee5bafade2bb924@proxima.alt.za> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <64FCC628-B4A9-4864-B0DF-2C6332446346@orthanc.ca>
> My point is that it's easier to fight the static Apple hardware, with
> it's absent hardware doc, than to fight the dynamic Intel/AMD
> hardware, with its/their also missing doc. At least the obsolete Apple
> gear is a non-moving target, so we stand a chance ... The x86 stuff
> changes on an hourly basis, and cannot be kept up with :-(
We violently agree on this point. There may be less agreement as to
how to port Plan 9 to such hardware: there seems to be a drift towards
virtualisation which of course eliminates any efficiencies (yes, I
know I'm exaggerating) contributed by Plan 9.
I think the philosophy (who said it first?) that something isn't
finished as long as there are features that can be removed - which
very clearly applies to Plan 9 - is being replaced by a culture where
Plan 9 is needed to squeeze the last teraflop out of the fastest
ultracomputing platform available at any time. I'm not sure that even
a middle ground is possible, while it is a matter of faith that the
first philosophy will eventually triumph over the opposing culture.
Some, of course, do not see the conflict here at all.
++L
PS: You did suggest originally that there was a similarity between the
lack of documentation for Apple hardware and that for the Intel
platform. I am pleased that you corrected that impression, the two
are different for exactly the reason you suggested.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-24 6:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-24 2:19 [9fans] Intel ICH7 AHCI cinap_lenrek
2008-02-24 2:58 ` erik quanstrom
2008-02-24 4:22 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-02-24 4:29 ` erik quanstrom
2008-02-24 5:31 ` ron minnich
2008-02-24 5:41 ` lucio
2008-02-24 6:05 ` [9fans] Consumers? We the eeevil empire are the consumers! Lyndon Nerenberg
2008-02-24 6:16 ` lucio
2008-02-24 6:34 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2008-02-24 6:54 ` lucio [this message]
2008-02-24 12:52 ` david jeannot
2008-02-24 16:48 ` lucio
2008-02-24 16:56 ` lucio
2008-02-24 21:31 ` Dave Eckhardt
2008-02-24 15:09 ` [9fans] Intel ICH7 AHCI erik quanstrom
2008-02-24 21:36 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-02-24 21:57 ` erik quanstrom
2008-02-24 23:03 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-02-24 18:46 [9fans] Consumers? We the eeevil empire are the consumers! john
2008-04-23 9:08 ` eekee57
2008-04-23 14:22 ` John Waters
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17f36dedcf5af9becee5bafade2bb924@proxima.alt.za \
--to=lucio@proxima.alt.za \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).