From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:50:35 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <3b63239de78906f1f0ca47fe50ecb2b1@brasstown.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <8C97A01D-CF9B-42E7-A76A-CB931660F3AB@me.com> References: <20120316193646.GA2789@polynum.com> <6809130.2019.1331980773050.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt15> <8C97A01D-CF9B-42E7-A76A-CB931660F3AB@me.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 rejected from GSoC 2012 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6af1a866-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon Mar 19 07:49:02 EDT 2012, c.paschke@me.com wrote: > Ok, for my understanding there is the difference between a > reincarnation resource approach on base of a Microkernel and driver in > user space (in Minix) or an file based distributed resource (in Plan > 9), right? So, both ideas I find quite interesting alternative > concepts, isn't it? distributed file servers and reincaration are orthagonal concepts. i'm not sure i understand the concept of reincarnation. on the one hand, hardware by its nature can lock your machine up solid and there's nothing the os can do about it. so how do you test driver reincarnation? where could it crash? if you knew the answer to that, you wouldn't need reincatnation. on the other hand, simple bugs like dereferncing null i think would be better handled by fixing the underlying problem. i wouldn't assume that nearly everyone else has taken a look at the reincarnation idea. - erik