From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3a2c5ee90758f46a3696656c51a44025@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:38:31 -0600
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] [OT] linux origins, why not?
In-Reply-To: <14178.1143674820@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25d70600-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i remember linux' existance giving quite a bit of pressure to the bsd projects.
it's hard to make convincing counterfactual arguments. waiting just a few
years is a really big deal when you're the one waiting.

i wore down the academic computing guys at the college i attended till
they signed the paperwork necessiary for a academic licence way back when.
the cd arrived the summer after i graduated.

i don't see how mach is an improvement over linux.  especially early linux.
mach kernels were three times the size of linux kernels of the day
and didn't do anything useful by themselves. sure they had threads, but
they also had 31 flavors of messages.

mach was developed at cmu and freely available, wasn't it? the documentation
was (tree killers).

- erik

On Wed Mar 29 17:28:38 CST 2006, davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
> And if you *had* suffered that delay, you'd have got not only BSD
> Unix but also Mach (multiprocessor support, multi-threaded processes).
> Or maybe Plan 9 :-)
>
> Dave Eckhardt