From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <e07e75326ce98448ae07150468933eee@caldo.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <oprw7e2gvxrveh1e@smtp.borf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:41:12 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 71a3ccb2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>The Linux baggage is just the cost of having most hardware supported.

not really: it's fundamentally flawed.
to be fair, i haven't looked at 2.6 yet, though i've got it on DVD (!)
but for the five (different) versions i've got,
even the #include files are barely finite,
you need to wade through chains of #ifn?def to work
out what applies in your case, x86 is deeply embedded(!)
in surprising ways, and all in all it's depressing when it's not awful.

the aim of implementing an operating system
(or graphics subsystem) is to try to help control complexity,
not create it.

The difference between a computer scientist and a hacker is that the
computer scientist knows what an exponential is.  -MD McIlroy