From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <775b8d190709062109o1c0a64b8y55ceb79e95083ecb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13426df10709061238l1e081fel101928310c9db13c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1189134549.6197.2.camel@ginkgo>
	<775b8d190709062109o1c0a64b8y55ceb79e95083ecb@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <56818661-B933-4FC2-9522-203075455287@orthanc.ca>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
Date: Thu,  6 Sep 2007 21:25:41 -0700
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ba37b41a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On 2007-Sep-6, at 21:09 , Bruce Ellis wrote:

> someone written a line of relevant code during this "discussion"?

Be careful.  Coding to mailing list discussions results in Linux.

FWIW, the discussion here has made more sense than any and all
arguments/conversations I've had with UNIX vendors over the last
decade-and-a-half.

And I'm talking about both malloc and spawn.

The concept of assembling processes in user space is intriguing, and
I'd like to hear more from the people who have thought/played with
the idea.

I'm convinced there is no solution to brk; it's an untenable
implementation (although it made perfect sense at the time).  As long
as our programming languages insist on direct memory pointers I don't
see a way out.  But so far all the alternatives just lead to madness ...

--lyndon