On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
wrote:

> > I believe the reasoning is as such:
> >
> > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
>
> if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
> rid of plan 9?


I'm just saying I would never consider running linux on plan 9.  I can't
think of a single reason I'd ever want to do that, because, linux is so much
easier to get installed on real hardware than plan 9.


>
> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
> on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.


If the goal was to avoid admining linux then one shouldn't run linux.
 That's not much of an argument.  May as well run 9vx on FreeBSD :-)  Same
argument holds.


>
> i don't mean to use a broad brush.  there are good reasons
> for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use
> a linux hosting company.
>
> but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as
> a device driver.


Nope Linux got where it is by apache.


>
>
> - erik
>
>
>