From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: References: <35b09c83f408fc9fd7a2b0d019a96010@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp> <41753982.2090903@anvil.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave Lukes Subject: Re: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:17:06 +0100 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: f111f072-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Tim, You are missing the point of what I said: >> Kernels are also important in the sense that they set the tone for >> everything above them: In other words, if you have a crufty kernel, you'll have a smelly compiler, and vice-versa. >> kencc wouldn't have happened on linux, for example. i.e. if you have just implemented the 15th optional parameter to the asynciowithorwithoutsignalandoptionalscattergatherfromthe19thaddresszone () system call, which supplies a bitmask of signal numbers and the days of the week on which to send them in the event of there being a 'c' in the month name, then adding the __asm____stuff___3_registers_and_a_status_mask_up_your_nose() inline to gcc to make it run 10 times faster seems like a ReallyGoodIdea(tm). > The "personality" can be completely isolated from the kernel. Yes, but you've still gotta struggle through six piles of elephant excrement to get there, by which time your brain is soup, and you're muttering about how to implement a 15th way to map all the odd-numbered framebuffers into someone else's address space. > It is possible to provide the complete plan9 API above windows > or linux or any other reasonable kernel. It wouldn't be efficient, > and you may have to bend over backwards in a few places if using > some APIs (ie. see cygwin's implementation of fork and select > using only the win32 api), but it is possible. So in this sense, > I'm not sure I agree with you. Well, we're talking oranges and (Posix-compliant) apples, so it's hard to agree: you're talking about implementations, I'm talking about philosophical approaches to problem solving. Cheers, DaveL.