From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <e5af0901972596525e14b0067d3bc305@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  8 Jul 2008 12:04:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60807080858o499bc3c4l514056f090751e4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: de8591e2-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>
> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.

if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?

in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.

i don't mean to use a broad brush.  there are good reasons
for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use
a linux hosting company.

but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as
a device driver.

- erik