On 10/9/18, Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote: > > One thing I have mused about is recasting plan9 as a > microkernel and pushing out a lot of its kernel code into user > mode code. It is already half way there -- it is basically a > mux for 9p calls, low level device drivers, VM support & some > process related code. Such a redesign can be made more secure > and more resilient. The kind of problems you mention are > easier to fix in user code. Different application domains may > have different needs which are better handled as optional user > mode components. > There are religious reasons not to go there and, perhaps not very widely advertised, Minix-3 already does that, although I confess that all my best efforts have not yet created the space for my own experimentation with it.
You won't believe what kind of madnesses I need to deal with to consume my few and short remaining years - I'm with Dan in cursing the modern technological trends, but one of these days I'm going to lock myself in someone's attic or basement (or a prison cell, if that's what it takes, a monastery, whatever...) with my Galaxy S4 and a dated Riff-box - is that really what this black object is called? - and build an OS from the accumulated wisdom of the last forty years. It will probably look more like MS-DOS, though! :-( > Said another way, keep the good parts of the plan9 design and > reachitect/reimplement the kernel + essential drivers/usermode > daemons. This is unlikely to happen (without some serious > funding) but still fun to think about! If done, this would be > a more radical departure than Oberon-7 compared to Oberon but > in the same spirit. > Surely, the targets for experimentation should be the ubiquitous smart-mobile and the insane arithmetic power of GPUs? All neatly networked over SDLC (or HDLC: AoH, anyone, for persistent storage?). Lucio.