From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:00:07 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Glendix? In-Reply-To: <473980C6.4040009@kix.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: f6dca826-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Hi, > > > so you might get more hardware support, but you'd lose all the userspace > > code, so would it really end up that much more capable? > > I don't understand what "lose all the userspace code" means. The > objective of the exercise is to enable Plan 9's userspace to work > unmodified on Linux. > > It boils down to Linux's drivers/schedulers/et.al. but Plan 9's > programming environment. You'd still use /net to do network programming, > use libdraw and not X, so to the programmer the fact that the > distribution is running the Linux kernel is not known. > > Performance-wise, I see how it would be a bad idea; since read/write to > /net will ultimately result in a socket-like call, so there would be a > overhead. > > -- > Anant what an unholy marrage! what happens when you're tracking a bug? do you give up when it enters linux? how do you configure hardware if you're not going to use the linux machinery? why are linux schedulers interesting? i think that rather than the best of both worlds, you'd end up with the worst of both. all the joys of linux administration and yet no (insert favorite browser here). - erik