From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180906003258.9A428156E400@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: From: Chris McGee Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 07:41:21 -0400 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006736c60575325f48" Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e17856ae-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0000000000006736c60575325f48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > What one wants is Plan 9 as a > model for what may be a family of hardware APIs. It makes sense to > promote massive parallelism, but the API to it should be sufficiently > simple for a single individual to manage. > This is the what I wonder about. Is this possible at the hardware level and still support an equally simple, understandable, yet capable, software system on top? By extension, would Plan 9 would run on such a system or if it would require some fundamental changes to adapt to it. For example, does C really need to be thrown out or can it be revised. > Most computing devices today are single-user, even those like my new > Android phone that offer shared user capabilities. Incidentally, the > authorisation model in this case is inadequate for my purpose (share > with a pre-teen). > I am in this boat too, however I have a general aversion to cloud computing and so I would need some household multi-user systems for data storage and heavy processing tasks or some distributed equivalent. > So we have layers and we need the complexity to be shoved into > well-tested, sealed boxes that can be trusted, while the surface > remains as simple as 9P. > My trouble is that I don't trust the sealed boxes anymore after Meltdown, Spectre, Rowhammer, etc. Perhaps simple and auditable hardware might help with this. --0000000000006736c60575325f48 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What one wants is Plan 9 as a
model for what may be a family of hardware APIs. It makes sense to
promote massive parallelism, but the API to it should be sufficiently
simple for a single individual to manage.

This is the what I wonder about. Is this possible at the hardware level = and still support an equally simple, understandable, yet capable, software = system on top? By extension, would Plan 9 would run on such a system or if = it would require some fundamental changes to adapt to it. For example, does= C really need to be thrown out or can it be revised.
=C2=A0<= br>
Most computing devices today are single-user, even those like my new
Android phone that offer shared user capabilities. Incidentally, the
authorisation model in this case is inadequate for my purpose (share
with a pre-teen).

I am in this boat too= , however I have a general aversion to cloud computing and so I would need = some household multi-user systems for data storage and heavy processing tas= ks or some distributed equivalent.
=C2=A0
So we have layers and we need the complexity to be shoved into
well-tested, sealed boxes that can be trusted, while the surface
remains as simple as 9P.

My trouble is = that I don't trust the sealed boxes anymore after Meltdown, Spectre, Ro= whammer, etc. Perhaps simple and auditable hardware might help with this.
--0000000000006736c60575325f48--