* [9fans] amd64 port @ 2010-10-13 23:28 Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan 2010-10-13 23:42 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan @ 2010-10-13 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] amd64 port 2010-10-13 23:28 [9fans] amd64 port Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan @ 2010-10-13 23:42 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 2010-10-13 23:54 ` John Floren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2010-10-13 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] amd64 port 2010-10-13 23:42 ` Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2010-10-13 23:54 ` John Floren 2010-10-14 4:17 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: John Floren @ 2010-10-13 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 >> >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] amd64 port 2010-10-13 23:54 ` John Floren @ 2010-10-14 4:17 ` David Leimbach 2010-10-15 5:29 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2010-10-14 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] amd64 port 2010-10-14 4:17 ` David Leimbach @ 2010-10-15 5:29 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan 2010-10-15 17:01 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan @ 2010-10-15 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] amd64 port 2010-10-15 5:29 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan @ 2010-10-15 17:01 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2010-10-15 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > well, I'd say the best target for amd64 is qemu-system-x86_64 so we spend minimal time on driver peculiarities and hardware nonsense, but since I have zero time to work on it, I'll shut up :) -eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-10-15 17:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-10-13 23:28 [9fans] amd64 port Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan 2010-10-13 23:42 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 2010-10-13 23:54 ` John Floren 2010-10-14 4:17 ` David Leimbach 2010-10-15 5:29 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan 2010-10-15 17:01 ` Eric Van Hensbergen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).