From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2009 12:16:58 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <18c1a2bdb1b9f3c1f9d23182387b5dd6@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <13426df10901070855t49869a03k3db4fb51b69373a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9D53E35A-6A8A-43C7-A1A7-98D566FC061A@sun.com>
	<94fd010cc7b6b876b4fb7da01f109fd0@quanstro.net>
	<13426df10901070855t49869a03k3db4fb51b69373a3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7b808c4a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed Jan  7 11:58:04 EST 2009, rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
> The underlying assumption of motivation for this discussion is that
> jailing (or whatever we want to call it) is somehow a good thing.
> Given that every CPU we care about comes with virtualization hardware,
> I just can't see the point of jails -- seems like an idea whose time
> has gone, kind of like 8086 segments.
>
> If we give up on using RFNOMNT as a jailing mechanism, do the concerns
> really make any sense?
>
> ron

arm has virtualization?

- erik