From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d190709062137u3e2838a9x165a69379ab2cf55@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri,  7 Sep 2007 14:37:36 +1000
From: "Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
In-Reply-To: <56818661-B933-4FC2-9522-203075455287@orthanc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <13426df10709061238l1e081fel101928310c9db13c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1189134549.6197.2.camel@ginkgo>
	<775b8d190709062109o1c0a64b8y55ceb79e95083ecb@mail.gmail.com>
	<56818661-B933-4FC2-9522-203075455287@orthanc.ca>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ba62cc7c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

coding at home and getting something significant working
is what i meant.  but by all means write to the list instead.

brucee

On 9/7/07, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:
>
> 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
>