From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> From: Bakul Shah Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:33:06 +0200." <8ccc8ba40606091433x10906535x6ade0c3f4ce7a199@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:22:22 -0700 Message-Id: <20060609222222.E4AFD294C1@mail.bitblocks.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6552b68a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > Lisp machines/environments did this 25+ years ago. > > Everything is an s-expression is even more fun than > > everything is a file! > > I don´t agree. The problem with lisp is that you don´t have > protection. Didn´t you manage to bring down the whole emacs > by, say, implementing your CD player in elisp?. Now, in > Plan 9 processes are really isolated. If one of them crashes, the other > ones stay alive (Probably). Isolation by MMU is a separate issue. If you wish you can think of a Lisp machine as analogous to Inferno, with Lisp as its virtual machine language! Also Lisp machine != emacs. In any case even you admit (with your parenthetical "Probably") that while at process level there is isolation you can still run into trouble as there may be higher level dependencies. > I mean, you have "red lines" that protect you. I wouldn´t throw away > my MMU, just for protection. I understand that well. My point was only that what Roman wanted was already available 25+ years ago; not that it was perfect -- too bad that branch got pruned too early. In any case Plan 9 and LM are still like working under the hood or playing with legos. If you just want to drive your lego car soon you discover they don't make great cars (even great toy cars).