From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Xen for Windows(Was:vmware 5.0) From: Brantley Coile Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:21:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050831185210.1218a746@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-kychililcghobligsoqwsdufku" Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8205635a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-kychililcghobligsoqwsdufku Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit these are good reasons and bring to mind a question. why don't we define a generic microkernel that all these systems can use and not have to go to all the tricks of VM? i now that the usual definition for a microkernel is the part that supports all the processes that really make up the OS. but if we had a generic microkernel then people could write device drivers for that an all the other OSs could use that. i'm not holding my breath on the above, so next question. is the structure of windows device driver environments well known enough to build a small `container' to use off-the-shelf windows drivers on plan 9? Brantley --upas-kychililcghobligsoqwsdufku Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by coraid.com; Wed Aug 31 18:01:33 EDT 2005 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3FC275B8A6 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:01:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id A2B655AB0F for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (psuvax1 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 08103-01-71 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 16DBF5AA7E for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dial-80-47-75-109.hex.lond.access.as9105.com [80.47.75.109] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1EAaPI2y0z-0007Nr; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:46:08 +0200 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:52:10 +0100 From: "Martin C. Atkins" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Xen for Windows(Was:vmware 5.0) Message-Id: <20050831185210.1218a746@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <8ea6a210ff3a1dccd1ba45e51fe924f2@coraid.com> References: <6a65a8b751540b784b8cbff84466ad36@hera.eonet.ne.jp> <8ea6a210ff3a1dccd1ba45e51fe924f2@coraid.com> Organization: Parvat Infotech (Private) Limited X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:36ac05c78f2d71fdd8502b36d47d3e88 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: 9fans-bounces+brantley=coraid.com@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-bounces+brantley=coraid.com@cse.psu.edu On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:04:34 -0400 Brantley Coile wrote: > i too am both curious as to the motivations for VM and completely open My reasons: 1) I hate mucking with partitions - too much chance of zapping something important by mistake, and they *always* end up being the wrong size, regardless of how much planning I do... With a VM, the filesystems can be in normal files, which doesn't completely avoid the problem, but removes the day-to-day need to re-partition. 2) Machines are cheap, but (desk/office/etc) space is not. Virtual machines don't take up real space! 3) 2 in another guise - I don't want to carry n>1 laptops! 4) I can move virtual machines between physical machines just by copying the filesystems. 5) Compatibility with OSs I don't want to run all the time (without rebooting) All the other things people have mentioned... Martin -- Martin C. Atkins martin_ml@parvat.com Parvat Infotech Private Limited http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin} --upas-kychililcghobligsoqwsdufku--