From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310171349130.11974-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
Message-ID: <oprw7e2gvxrveh1e@smtp.borf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@prepaynt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310171349130.11974-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:26:30 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 718402f6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:17:32 -0600 (MDT), ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> I'd still rather work with a real plan 9 kernel. There's so much baggage in Linux I don't want to deal with. I would rather put my efforts into making plan 9 a bigger deal.

Can this be done without having to make a branch of the Linux kernel?
The Linux baggage is just the cost of having most hardware supported.
Can most of the Linux kernel be look--don't touch?

 Brantley