From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] an idea From: Charles Forsyth In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-rfoaliolfcuvslrgroecnbaiea" Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:49:44 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6f3004cc-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-rfoaliolfcuvslrgroecnbaiea Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Messages to kernel bits reminds me of Mach somehow. What happened to Mach >>was sometimes referred to as "message death". that was bad. i might have chosen the 4.2bsd design document. not messaging but a similar feel of much mechanism more complex than that it replaces (which is all that anyone ends up using anyway for some reason). nevertheless, there have been good message passing systems; it's just that (perhaps) Mach wasn't one of them. i admit it was never one of my favourites. still, to focus on the export aspect is possibly sensible since that apparently has been surprisingly troublesome all round. even there, part of the problem i think has been the usual one of gradually working out what the specification actually was, incrementally. eventually, one reaches a stage where it all seems quite obvious, but by that time, so many people have jaundiced opinions about it. --upas-rfoaliolfcuvslrgroecnbaiea Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by lavoro; Mon Apr 26 20:51:24 BST 2004 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 1A67619FE7; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7CCB019E2B; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:52:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 7366519E42; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (mailwasher.lanl.gov [192.16.0.25]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3AC9C19C1E for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailrelay2.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailwasher-b.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id i3QJpYik026106 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:51:34 -0600 Received: from ccs-mail.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay2.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id i3QJpYp9008944 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:51:34 -0600 Received: from maxroach.lanl.gov (maxroach.lanl.gov [128.165.250.187]) by ccs-mail.lanl.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/(ccn-5)) with ESMTP id i3QJpYwO015229 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:51:34 -0600 From: ron minnich To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] an idea In-Reply-To: <323e1127492657ee8f9f34692a52c7fa@vitanuova.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:51:33 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on psuvax1.cse.psu.edu X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 rog@vitanuova.com wrote: > if devices speak in terms of 9p messages, you're talking about a > stream of 9p messages. This part is a tiny bit worrisome for me but I didn't want to bring it up. Messages to kernel bits reminds me of Mach somehow. What happened to Mach was sometimes referred to as "message death". ron --upas-rfoaliolfcuvslrgroecnbaiea--