From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9 From: Geoff Collyer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:38:41 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 71e79dde-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 But 4.1BSD was much closer to V7 and 32V than Linux is to Plan 9. Berkeley had added some optimisations (real and imagined) and `poked dirty fingers all over previously clean code' (I believe that's a quote from Ken). I think the Linux kernel is hopeless and I don't want to run it: ignoring its size, complexity and ugliness, it's just too buggy and poorly designed. The thought of storing files that I value in a file system implemented on top of that kernel makes me queasy. It might be possible to construct a cage such that Linux drivers could be compiled and run in Plan 9 kernels without causing too much damage to the running system. I'd like to have a full-time person keeping up with new hardware (processors and peripherals mainly), but I don't know how to fund such a person. Much of the code could be shared with Inferno, so that might help. More later.