From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:46:37 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: deda0a06-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> I believe the reasoning is as such: >> >> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. > > in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo > on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining > linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. > That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used. I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can be setup to pass-through device access to network, disk, audio, whatever. The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules the roost. Linux just deals with device access. I don't really think this undermines Plan 9 in any way unless you are keen on optimizing device performance -- in which case you do indeed most likely want native. But my point is, the Linux "I/O layer" is essentially non-administered. It doesn't need user accounts, an IP address, or even much of a file system (just enough to boot Plan 9 like in THX). -ericvh