On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote: > What all you think about that ? I think you need to do a literature search for, oh, say, six months and get back to us. You'll need to read ca. 256-512 or so articles. I'm not kidding. You should start reading papers from the 1960s. And oh yes, don't ignore Plan 9 just because it doesn't fit a convenient category. Also, go ahead and look at NT, but put it in the "successful marketing covering for bad implementation" column. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Is traditional unixes kernel really stable ? Gustavo V G C Rios
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel really st... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel reall... Gustavo V G C Rios
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel r... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Is traditional unixes kern... Gustavo V G C Rios
- Re: Is traditional unixes... Kenneth Wayne Culver
- Re: Is traditional unixes... Nick Sayer
- Re: Is traditional un... Gustavo V G C Rios
- Re: Is traditiona... Andrew Reilly
- Re: Is traditional unixes... Ronald G. Minnich
- Re: Is traditional unixes... Wes Peters
- Re: Is traditional unixes kern... Warner Losh
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel really st... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel reall... Alfred Perlstein
- RE: Is traditional unixes kernel really st... Daniel O'Connor
- RE: Is traditional unixes kernel really st... Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel reall... Gustavo V G C Rios
- Re: Is traditional unixes kernel r... Ugen Antsilevitch
- Re: Is traditional unixes kern... David Holloway
- Re: Is traditional unixes... Wes Peters