From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f2a0fb6d6b06691146bbd7819001bc20@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:53:17 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <509071940907181623o51712d81y31dcc1b0e0983e0f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] About Plan9 on small systems
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 26e32e80-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat Jul 18 19:24:31 EDT 2009, anothy@gmail.com wrote:
> inferno's got lighter requirements in some ways, but has
> the same class of CPU requirements (more or less). if you
> have something lighter than that in mind, you might not get
> plan 9 but the ideas could still be useful. ask google about
> "styx on a brick" for an example of using styx (9p by
> another name) on a really small embedded device to
> export underlying capabilities.

the big difference is that inferno requires no mmu.

these days i think the bright line would be 32-bit cpus.
it would be quite difficult to get either one of them
working well on a 8- or 16-bit cpu.

- erik