From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7d625192b33b514ed15e5a82a0e56255@9srv.net>
From: a@9srv.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel
In-Reply-To: <0374a3982e4b359e09ce2a3be9192f06@yourdomain.dom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:30:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fd9b4cfe-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

// It isn't in my interest to determine who is right or wrong,
// only what makes sense universally.

let me help, then: nothing. nothing makes sense "universally".

Linux is Linux. Plan 9 is Plan 9. the two systems have very different
design goals. that's not to defend linux's fork design or any other
particular decision, but asking (by implication) why linux doesn't
just do something like env(3) misses those goals.

personally, i'm less interested in arguing point 1 from linus's post
(there might be valid reasons to do this sometimes), which seems at
least plausable, and much more interested in the other two. on the
second, i think clarification is in order: that's the main advantage
of threads over what, processes? and on that last one (the bit on
performance and code quality) i'm *really* curious what he's talking
about. do we have a particularly heavy fork? i'm confused. saying
"The Linux code is just better." just *begs* for support.

oh, and it's "Plan 9", or sometimes "plan9", but never "Plan-9".
thanks.
=E3=82=A2