On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe the reasoning is as such: > > > > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux. > > if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get > rid of plan 9? I'm just saying I would never consider running linux on plan 9. I can't think of a single reason I'd ever want to do that, because, linux is so much easier to get installed on real hardware than plan 9. > > in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo > on top of linux. it's not like you can avoid admining > linux by hiding on a vm running on linux. If the goal was to avoid admining linux then one shouldn't run linux. That's not much of an argument. May as well run 9vx on FreeBSD :-) Same argument holds. > > i don't mean to use a broad brush. there are good reasons > for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use > a linux hosting company. > > but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as > a device driver. Nope Linux got where it is by apache. > > > - erik > > >
