4 ms·
You shouldn't bring up Plan9 when discussing Linux. It's akin to bringing up Mozart's writing symphonies at the age of 8 to the proud mother of a somewhat disa
by RamiK 13y ago
You shouldn't bring up Plan9 when discussing Linux.
It's akin to bringing up Mozart's writing symphonies at the age of 8 to the proud mother of a somewhat disabled child that has finally mastered the potty at the tender age of 12.
Seriously, you can literally list every single new IPC introduced in *nix in the last 3 decades and counter it with a better design and execution under Plan9. It's simply the result of a proper design as opposed to an afterthought. No real point in bringing it up unless you can constructively use the information to fix Linux.
- zobzu 13y agoyea your comment certainly is constructive.
- RamiK 13y agoIt's not. That's the point. You can't get constructive about this comparison. I suppose the only exception is to go the Wayland path and push IPC outside the kernel into the user land. At least there you can reason redundancy vs. redundant... But I honestly can't think of a single instance when that led to actual work getting done ;)
- eru 13y agoWhy? This seems like an issue that could be fixed in the shell---i.e. no need to involve any kernel design at all.
- clarry 13y ago> You shouldn't bring up Plan9 when discussing Linux. But the discussion isn't about Linux.
- derleth 13y agoWow. This is entirely incorrect on a simple, factual level.