From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <439ce9144800e42fe15a33950bcb15e6@coraid.com> References: <20090708084855.GA1371@polynum.com> <8ea4f24e3b6cd8f73321c0d62b295ccb@hamnavoe.com> <439ce9144800e42fe15a33950bcb15e6@coraid.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:34:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Dan Cross To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Google finally announces their lightweight OS Topicbox-Message-UUID: 164bb434-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > you say > >> I think, Google did not choose Plan 9 due lack of device drivers, poor >> IPv6 support and confusing redundant fragment of code lurking around in >> =C2=A0 /sys/boot or 9load, but a compared with Linux a compact, clean an= d >> much more efficient FreeBSD could definitely have been a better choice. > > but then > >> But that's [linux] still a huge hog and spaghetti code; needs a lot of c= leanup, >> which I don't think is going to happen in the near future. > > i think you're going to have to pick a lane. I think his lane is that Linux is complex, bloated, poorly designed, etc and that FreeBSD would have been a better choice. I have to agree with that.... > and having fought with both the linux and plan 9 boot process, > i can assure you that the plan 9 boot process is simplier and more > straightfoward. =C2=A0/sys/boot is trivial compared to a linux initrd. And how! - Dan C.