Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Eris Discordia]

Neither "purposeful omission" nor "amnesia." Rather pragmatism. Nachos,
ReactOS, QNX, and many others are left unmentioned, too. From these QNX has
been _really_ successful in the real world and it's fully POSIX. MOS is a
book for teaching the natural way to students not the (fruitless) deviation
to "hackers." Plan 9 is _for now_ a marginal player.

Just a look at how Anant Narayanan promoted his talk explains it all (and
he's a student of Tanenbaum's department):

"Plan 9 from Bell Labs is a radically new approach to operating and
distributed systems. Unencumbered by requirements such as ANSI or POSIX
compliance, the authors were able to take full advantage of modern
technology made available to us since UNIX was first conceived."

-- http://foss.in/2007/register/speakers/talkdetailspub.php?talkid=388

"Radically new?" "Unencumbered?" "Full advantage?" "Modern technology?"
Puh-lease! Microsoft had/has the largest installed base of operating
systems and the latest "technology access" and they didn't dare utter that.
Imagine this at some Microsoft developer convention: "we present here the
new version of Windows, completely 'unencumbered' by POSIX."

P.S. This was just some useless whining. A little spark. Let it die on its
own... there'll be no flames.

--On Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:52 PM -0700 Skip Tavakkolian
<9nut@9netics.com> wrote:

> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
> modern is that!?
>
>

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Pietro Gagliardi]

On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Eris Discordia wrote:

> completely 'unencumbered' by POSIX."

s/completely/almost &/

Pietro

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Eris Discordia]

> s/completely/almost &/

Please don't try to educate me P. G. Microsoft got themselves into lots of
trouble to make NT almost POSIX compliant and to also create a fully POSIX
compliant subsystem (SFU/SUA/Interix). Everybody knows that. The sentence
you quoted was a hypothetical, you know, a _hypothetical_. Seeing how
"terrific" the hypothetical sounds one gets to shudder at the sound of
Anant Narayanan's actual "promotion" of Plan 9.

--On Friday, September 12, 2008 2:47 PM -0400 Pietro Gagliardi
<pietro10@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Eris Discordia wrote:
>
>> completely 'unencumbered' by POSIX."
>
> s/completely/almost &/
>
> Pietro
>
>

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[lucio]

>> s/completely/almost &/
>
> Please don't try to educate me

This is a mailing list, not your private forum.  I'd like to repeat
the call to suspend anonymous posters.

++L

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Uriel]

Yea, fascism and censure will solve the problem! God forbid we stop
feeding the trolls!

Peace

uriel

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:53 AM,  <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>>> s/completely/almost &/
>>
>> Please don't try to educate me
>
> This is a mailing list, not your private forum.  I'd like to repeat
> the call to suspend anonymous posters.
>
> ++L
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[sqweek]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM,  <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> This is a mailing list, not your private forum.  I'd like to repeat
> the call to suspend anonymous posters.

 What exactly is an "anonymous poster"?
-sqweek

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[lucio]

>  What exactly is an "anonymous poster"?

Good question.  I'll back down, let's encourage purely confrontational
postings.  Cheers!

++L

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[hiro]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:54 PM, sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM,  <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>> This is a mailing list, not your private forum.  I'd like to repeat
>> the call to suspend anonymous posters.
>
>  What exactly is an "anonymous poster"?
> -sqweek
>
>

You should all get banned!1!11!

[9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Skip Tavakkolian]

i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
(2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
modern is that!?

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Tom Lieber]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
> modern is that!?

I had an older edition and I don't remember seeing any references in
that. Were they ever there?

--
Tom Lieber
http://AllTom.com/

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Brian L. Stuart]

> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
> modern is that!?

<shameless_plug>
They're in my book.
</shameless_plug>

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[erik quanstrom]

> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
> modern is that!?

that depends on one's definition of "modern".  i believe the plan 9 guys
and tanenbaum had a difference of opinion.  cf.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.research/browse_thread/thread/7f0d9faf290b8ce2/598d4a31d5c1aac7?lnk=gst&q=presotto#598d4a31d5c1aac7

- erik

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Federico G. Benavento]

I thought that Plan 9 was mentioned in "modern operating systems",
I read it in 2002, but maybe was in the distributed systems one

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
> modern is that!?
>
>
>



--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] purposeful omission or amnesia

[Eris Discordia]

"Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 3rd Edition" doesn't mention
it, but it's the MINIX (ah, MINIX 3) book anyway. "Modern Operating
Systems, 2nd Edition" contains not even a reference. "Computer Networks,
4th Edition" doesn't mention 9P at all--RPC's there, though.

Cool!

--On Friday, September 12, 2008 11:25 AM -0300 "Federico G. Benavento"
<benavento@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought that Plan 9 was mentioned in "modern operating systems",
> I read it in 2002, but maybe was in the distributed systems one
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
> wrote:
>> i was flipping through tanenbaum's "modern operating systems - 3e"
>> (2008) and couldn't find any mention of plan9, inferno or 9p.  how
>> modern is that!?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Federico G. Benavento
>