From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy"
Message-Id: <20010408193610.A1114199FD@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sun,  8 Apr 2001 15:36:08 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7abe5bbc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Because you need a brain the size of a planet to design a
microkernel based system and we only have egos that big.

--upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Sun Apr  8 13:56:23 EDT 2001
Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Sun Apr  8 13:56:22 EDT 2001
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.16.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id AC097199E3; Sun,  8 Apr 2001 13:56:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cs.usask.ca (cs.usask.ca [128.233.130.77])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2C441199C0
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun,  8 Apr 2001 13:55:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ultra5d.usask.ca (ultra5d.usask.ca [128.233.130.123])
	by cs.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA12000
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (aam396@localhost)
	by ultra5d.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA17283
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5d.usask.ca: aam396 owned process doing -bs
From: Andrey A Mirtchovski <aam396@mail.usask.ca>
X-Sender: aam396@ultra5d.usask.ca
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10104081148380.17278-100000@ultra5d.usask.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST)

hello all,

i seem to remember reading somewhere a reasoning on why it was chosen to
implement p9 with a monolithic kernel, instead of a micro one..

i can't find the link anymore, so i'd like to ask for, either pointers to any
documents discussing this, or a brief explanation in an email from anyone,
who feels they can give me one..

let me state the question clearly: why did the bell-labs team chose to
implement plan9 using a monolithic kernel?


i realize that a comparative analysis of the two architectures can lead to a
flamefest, so i ask only for facts :)


andrey

--upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy--