From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <daee7ee241cb3c49eebfe0ac412e8ed2@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:23:48 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0909212013510.23231@malasada.lava.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 747a61b8-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> >   - Microkernels are the way to go
> >        False unless your only goal is to get papers published.
> >        Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel
> >        we know and offers more functionality and comparable
> >        or often better performance.
>
> not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of
> ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functional,
> by design).  Some with very good performance.

i'm not sure what "good performance" means.  is there enough
functionality in current µkernels to even benchmark real work
against plan 9?

the original problem posed was the "scalability of linux development".
how does l4 help with linux' development problems?

i tend to think the problem is in goals and mgmt.
as a case in point,

> And instead of revising the design, I think we're going to see them go
> for the 2-percent speedups here and there.

from what i've seen, there's a funny math to
linux optimizations.  a number of 2% µoptimizations
lead to global 12% pessimization.

- erik