From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <32819cefb19e5379d86b3839994be6bb@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 2006 17:01:57 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40606091456y1c26e00es7b9af8b3d9ac120@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 65490c98-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

it is interesting that plan 9 could be rearranged as a classic =C2=B5kern=
el, using
9p for message passing.  a process server could do just that.
before you kill me, note the difference between "interesting" and "better=
." =E2=98=BA

how much slower is an exec over /cmd than via fork(2)/exec(2)?

- erik

On Fri Jun  9 16:59:40 CDT 2006, nemo@lsub.org wrote:
> Well, in Plan B we made an experimental /cmd, where processes
> were files in the sense that mkdir created one process, cp was used
> to supply the binary and the like. It did work, but it seemed more
> convenient to use the distributed plumbing to deliver cmd execution
> requests, and then, ox, the shell underlying omero, is in charge of
> executing the commands. Now we are back into /proc.