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?).


Reply via email to