From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <405DA0A1.4050204@swtch.com> From: Russ Cox User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] xen port? References: <237cdbb8.0403190517.1fb498c7@posting.google.com> <20040321172443.076993e8@dhcppc1> In-Reply-To: <20040321172443.076993e8@dhcppc1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:03:13 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3bea8484-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 George Michaelson wrote: >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:52:30 -0700 (MST) ron minnich wrote: > > > >>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Leo Caves wrote: >> >> >> >>>I am interested to hear opinion on what xen might offer in the Plan >>>9/inferno world-view. >>> >>> >>my one interest was that I could run auth, fs, and term on one laptop. >> >>ron >> >> > >Me three. and, get around non-supported h/w by using a virtual machine instance >which would be a longterm port available across changing pee cee hardware. > > it all depends on their driver support. they do ether but punt on video. since ethernet drivers are becoming more and more trivial while video is the real stumbling block, it's not clear that xen is so useful. as for running auth server, fs, and terminal on one laptop, just do it natively -- you don't need three separate kernels anyway, as long as fs == fossil. russ