From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <17f36dedcf5af9becee5bafade2bb924@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
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <64FCC628-B4A9-4864-B0DF-2C6332446346@orthanc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5f6dc8e8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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.