On 6 May 2014 03:19, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
the kernel source is less than the size of their include files
also, quite a bit that is unaccountably still in other kernels (because
Unix did it exactly that way in the 1970s on a PDP-11)
is in user space or across a
also, quite a bit that is unaccountably still in other kernels (because
Unix did it exactly that way in the 1970s on a PDP-11)
I think that unaccountably is a bit harsh. There is A L O T of old
Unix software that still just compiles and works out of the box on
Linux, Solaris, *BSD. There is a
Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 May 2014 09:38, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
I think that unaccountably is a bit harsh.
I was talking about kernels and kernel mechanisms.
Fair enough then.
Thanks,
Arnold
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:02:21AM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
On 6 May 2014 03:19, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, that's balanced
by browsers now easily rivalling the kernels you mention for complexity and
certainly size, with their brutalist programming
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:39:03AM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 09:02:21AM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
On 6 May 2014 03:19, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, that's balanced
by browsers now easily rivalling the kernels you
On 6 May 2014 10:52, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
like systems, one may not be even able to link the thing.
Recently I saw that the source of the underlying engine for (I think)
Chrome had roughly
halved in size. I'm not sure if that's the same version as the you've got.
They'd done trendy
On Tue May 6 04:39:11 EDT 2014, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
also, quite a bit that is unaccountably still in other kernels (because
Unix did it exactly that way in the 1970s on a PDP-11)
I think that unaccountably is a bit harsh. There is A L O T of old
Unix software that still just
Recently I saw that the source of the underlying engine for (I think)
Chrome had roughly halved in size. I'm not sure if that's the same
version as the you've got. They'd done trendy things like devise and
implement suitable abstractions for different parts of the
graphics/browsing model,
Plan 9 compilers are fast, Unix compilers are slow. Plan 9 compilers
compile less because the philosophy regarding #include files is
different. Plan 9 programs (including the kernel) are small, Unix
programs are large.
The Plan 9 kernel has less lines of code than Unix configure scripts.
The
On 05/06/2014 05:24 PM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
The question is not why does Plan 9 compile so quickly, is what
catastrophe happened in Unix making everything so slow and large.
Well, you know there is a lot of noise for linux kernel about keeping it
compatible for even very old versions of apps
that, and they gave up on being compatable with apple's webkit.
It's not just about compatibility: they shrunk the scope of the
problem they're trying to solve by quite a bit. WebKit aims to be a
sort of general-purpose web rendering engine; Blink (Google's
fork) is much more closely targeting
Well, you know there is a lot of noise for linux kernel about keeping it
compatible for even very old versions of apps binaries, while in
reality, linux apps binaries are very rare to be executed even from one
distro to another...
most of the 2ed binaries still run on modern 386 kernels.
plan9 also has /n/dump, which is great to find out if
and when suff has regressed. :)
having self contained program binaries is great.
--
cinap
Hi guys,
Recently, I use plan 9 system a lot to familiar with the kernel
development environment. To my surprise, plan 9 has a rather fast
kernel compilation time compared to modern operating systems such as Linux
or Solaris. Instead of digging much into the kernel code, I post the
question
On 6 May 2014 03:13, yan cui ccuiy...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of digging much into the kernel code, I post the question here.
Does the speed come from its good design or insufficient kernel support?
it's a bit of both: the compiler suite is much faster; the kernel source is
less than the
Thanks Charles for the quick reply! It is really interesting.
Believe I can find more interesting things after digging deeper.
Yan
2014-05-05 22:19 GMT-04:00 Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com:
On 6 May 2014 03:13, yan cui ccuiy...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of digging much into
2014-05-05 22:19 GMT-04:00 Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com:
On 6 May 2014 03:13, yan cui ccuiy...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of digging much into the kernel code, I post the question here.
Does the speed come from its good design or insufficient kernel support?
it's a bit of
17 matches
Mail list logo
