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