From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tlaronde@polynum.com Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:59:53 +0200 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20090417215953.GA3645@polynum.com> References: <20090417193910.GA3103@polynum.com> <5ffcabbd9a2a14f17eb93ecdf8dd8110@bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ffcabbd9a2a14f17eb93ecdf8dd8110@bellsouth.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] VMs, etc. (was: Re: security questions) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4a6ad6c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:25:40PM -0500, blstuart@bellsouth.net wrote: > > Again, that's not to say that there aren't other valid motivators > for some centralized functionality. It's just that in my opinion, > we're at the point were if it's raw cycles we need, we'll have > to be looking at a large cluster and not a simple CPU server. Well there is perhaps a hint about what we disagree about. I'm not using CPU with the strict present meaning in Plan 9 but as a _logical_ processing unit (this can actually be, in this scheme, a cluster or whatever). This does not invalidate the logical difference between a terminal and "a" CPU. A node can be both a CPU (resp. member of a CPU) and a terminal etc. The plan 9 distinction, on the usage side et on the topology, between FileServer, CPU and Terminal is sound and fundamental IMHO. Enough for me at the moment since, even if I have some things on the application side, for the rest my discussion of "cloud computing" could be a discussion about "vapor computing" ;) -- Thierry Laronde (Alceste) http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C