From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60606140717q39488901t9e80ec437eeadb46@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:17:24 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is In-Reply-To: <57b545aaa294caf62bb6a5c79ca54fbf@hamnavoe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60606132109x472be730j1ec16dee81036630@mail.gmail.com> <57b545aaa294caf62bb6a5c79ca54fbf@hamnavoe.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a207f9e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 6/14/06, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote: > > (may work with their Linux/Windows versions too) > > I've just been re-working the Plan 9 xen port to make it compatible with > Xen 3.0. Does parallels on linux make this obsolete? > > -- Richard > Well Xen 3.0 supposedly supports the same hardware extensions Intel has for virtualizing OSes. In theory if you had an Intel Core Duo or Core Solo (or Merom or Conroe which are of the Core 2 Duo family) you could use either Xen or Parallels to run OSes "unmodified". At least that's the marketing. Xen will likely be more popular than Parallels on Linux due to it's free beer nature, and is likely worth a shot. Another interesting path might be to run Plan 9 like L4 Linux using L4 as the "hypervisor" of sorts. Linux seems to do better on L4 than on Xen performance wise by some numbers I've seen. I think Xen is more approachable than L4 though, in general, and the port's already been done before.