From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:29:12 -0700 Message-ID: From: Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] amd64 port Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6553103a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 wrote: > Plan 9'on ARM makes a lot of sense to me. =A0I still think x86 is > worthwhile though. > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, John Floren 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 = wrote: >>> ppc64 and amd64 support exists. =A0the ppc64 port is partial and is >>> available publically. =A0It is my understanding that the amd64 is >>> partial and available to those who ask. =A0Things 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. >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0-eric >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >