On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM, yy <yiyu....@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/8/1 Ethan Grammatikidis <eeke...@fastmail.fm>: >> >> Along with support servers this could >> ultimately give a very complete Plan 9 experience without any of the >> performance issues of virtualisation or the other issues of 9vx. > > Do you know what would give a more complete Plan 9 experience? Plan 9. > > I can see the beauty of a GNU-free staticly linked system, it is > indeed an interesting project, but it woulld not be too useful for me. > The reason I use p9p/9vx on top of unix is because of all the shit I > cannot run on a native Plan 9 system, and all that shit (X and web > browsers included) is from my pov the real challenge of the project. > But why running Plan 9 tools on top of a crippled Unix? I'd really > like to know a real use-case where neither a native system neither > glibc are feasible solutions.
Most werc setups are an example of real use cases where one wants to run Plan 9 user space tools on linux (due to hosting/hardware-support/performance/web-server issues) while one wants to avoid glibc mainly because it makes static linking really hard, and dynamic linking makes fork/exec SLOW. uriel > > That said, it would probably be easier to fix the issues with 9vx than > what you are proposing. Performance is not a real problem, and it can > be improved. Bugs can be fixed (let me know if you find any issues). > And if 9vx does not fullfill your expectations, just use the real > thing. > > -- > - yiyus || JGL . 4l77.com > >
