From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: splite@purdue.edu To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9 Message-ID: <20031020214007.GG1338@sigint.cs.purdue.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:40:07 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 74a58414-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 04:38:41PM -0700, Geoff Collyer wrote: > > I think the Linux kernel is hopeless and I don't want to run it: > ignoring its size, complexity and ugliness, it's just too buggy and > poorly designed. The thought of storing files that I value in a file > system implemented on top of that kernel makes me queasy. Then try not to think about all the poorly-designed, buggy hardware between the kernel and your bits. You'll lose your lunch. Yeah, Linux sucks, but it works well enough. I've had more trouble with my car, water softener, garage door opener, etc. than I've ever had with Linux filesystems. > It might be possible to construct a cage such that Linux drivers could > be compiled and run in Plan 9 kernels without causing too much damage > to the running system. I'd guess that each driver would require its own custom-made cage. Maybe that would be less work that re-implementing the entire driver, but I dunno. > I'd like to have a full-time person keeping up with new hardware > (processors and peripherals mainly), but I don't know how to fund such > a person. Much of the code could be shared with Inferno, so that > might help. The problem is finding someone with sufficient taste to write decent Plan 9-style drivers but low enough self-esteem to inflict monstrosities like USB on themselves daily. Good luck.