From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87zo0w1vs2.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <200203211938.g2LJcHt15841@aubrey.stanford.edu>, <87d6xxnx0a.fsf@becket.becket.net>, Subject: Re: Q [Re: [9fans] long long whining] Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:22:01 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6dab184c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 ozan s yigit writes: > "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" writes: > > > For Plan 9, and the Hurd, this is still true, but we have a perfectly > > good way (a better way!) than putting it in the kernel. > > since you mention both in the same breath, i'm curious what ideas, if any > you borrow from plan9 for the current(?) version. i see some bits and > pieces of work from roland mcgrath, but no indication of any important > architectural work. anything happened since 1.2 that in any way > relates to plan9? The basic architecture is pretty much fixed. There wasn't a great deal of conscious borrowing from Plan 9 in designing the architecture, but both share the property of putting filesystems outside the kernel and making them able to easily support all the various file system operations. I first thought of these ideas when I was working for UNM, in conversations with Lee Ward there, in the late 1980s. I don't know whether he had been familiar with Plan 9 [or other work at Bell Labs] or not, but I was not at the time. Thomas