From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Again: (self)hosted Plan9? Was: [9fans] extending xen to allow 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:13:42 MST."
	<13426df10612121513l5ce5490fkcabf1876cbe56317@mail.gmail.com> 
From: Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:47:24 -0800
Message-Id: <20061212234724.80D975B49@mail.bitblocks.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f33a45ee-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Hence the approach we are taking with xen. You get a linux, you get a
> Plan 9, you get holes torn in the I/O and memory spaces from Plan 9 to
> hardware to let you doink hardware and write drivers under Plan 9,
> and, with any luck, crash the machine at will.

Have your considered inverting this setup?  Rather than a
native Linux and a parasitic plan9, have a native plan9 hand
over io and memory space it doesn't understand to the
parasite.  I'd rather have a very lean, clean and thin native
os (AKA hypervisor). Of course I have no idea if this can be
made to work....