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: <e07e75326ce98448ae07150468933eee@caldo.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <oprw7gchq5rveh1e@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: <e07e75326ce98448ae07150468933eee@caldo.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:54:07 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 71b3ecc8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:41:12 +0100, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> The Linux baggage is just the cost of having most hardware supported.
>
> not really: it's fundamentally flawed.

I just meant that putting up with the Linux mess is the
cost of not having to write all the drivers for
everything.  I didn't mean that the kernel's
state was `natural.'  I agree with everything
you said.  Can't we fix the include files and
still not be trapped supporting the 2M+lines of
kernel code?

 Brantley