Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan <vdharani@gmail.com>]

hi,

i think we could stress on a specific architecture (and aim to provide
basic and improved support) based on these criteria:

- mainline architecture
- cheap and affordable both for companies and individuals (also,
single board orders as well as bulk orders)
- widely deployed and used
- has future
- availability of VM software (like VmWare, Parallels, etc) and
ability to run at least on top of such facility
- low power versions

i guess amd64 is a definite win.

this apart, i am very happy to see plan9 running in as many platforms
as possible. just that we may have to avoid some platforms that looks
like cheap plan 9 terminals but ends up being very costly (like geoff
mentioned for beagleboard) while an atom board can easily do the job.

thanks
dharani


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:17 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plan 9'on ARM makes a lot of sense to me.  I still think x86 is
> worthwhile though.
>
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, John Floren <slawmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've consumed the Kool-Aid and now believe that ARM is the proper
>> future for Plan 9. With Gumstix, you can get USB, DVI, audio, storage,
>> ethernet, wifi, 3G, all in one tiny little box, for under $200, and
>> with increasingly improving Plan 9 support (certainly better than
>> amd64, which I used--it was primitive because nobody really used it)
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
>>> available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
>>> partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
>>> devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
>>> changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
>>> compilers.
>>>
>>>      -eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
>>> <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>>>>
>>>> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
>>>> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>>>>
>>>> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
>>>> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>>>>
>>>> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
>>>> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
>>>> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
>>>> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
>>>> support).
>>>>
>>>> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
>>>> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
>>>> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> please pass your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> dharani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>