From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] another VM type host
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:05:02 +0200."
             <200402020905.i12952jE019197@skeeve.com>
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21686.1075783154.1@t40.swtch.com>
Message-Id: <E1AnsLE-0005do-8V@t40.swtch.com>
Date: Mon,  2 Feb 2004 23:39:14 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cbe6c3dc-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> A friend recently pointed me at:
>
> 	 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/
>
> The guest OS runs in x86 ring 1, instead of ring 0, so the OS must actually
> be ported to work with it.  Has any 9developer seen this yet?

The guest OS in VMware does too.  The difference is they
punt on x86 compatibility, so that's why the OS must be ported.
They don't virtualize the video either, making it pretty darned
useless to me -- I can already run auth, terminal, and fs on
one laptop by using fossil.

Russ