From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <37551344f42333055868843fb84125ba@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 2018 10:44:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CACo5X5huoyFTtwdKMVSgL0Sr61efR446bbgOPe68f0L6J5RQbg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] what heavy negativity!
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e8bdf2d4-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> So the question is... is plan9 still lean and mean enough to fit onto a
> machine with a 64K address space?

Lean in concepts and algorithms doesn't necessarily imply lean in
resource usage -- sometimes the opposite.  I don't have access to
1st edition source, but the 2nd edition C compiler used a simplified
malloc() which grew the address space in 500000 byte hunks, and a
free() which was even simpler:

	void
	free(void *p)
	{
		USED(p);
	}

It seems that already in 1995, virtual memory was assumed to be
not particularly constrained.