clearly the more certain people think the more text gets created.
> Let's take a step back here
feel free, it will save everybody's time.
saving every bit of memory has costs in coding, the pressure wasn't as
strong any more.
the earned flexibility can be used for more elegant design.
On 2018-10-08T15:29:02+1100, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
> A native Inferno port would certainly be a lot easier, but I think you
> might be a bit pessimistic about would can fit into a 64K address space
> machine. The 11/70 certainly managed to run a very respectable V7 Unix
> supporting 20-30
> So the question is... is plan9 still lean and mean enough to fit onto a
> machine with a 64K address space?
Lean in concepts and algorithms doesn't necessarily imply lean in
resource usage -- sometimes the opposite. I don't have access to
1st edition source, but the 2nd edition C compiler used
On 2018-10-08T05:38:07+0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
> You really must be thinking of Inferno, native, running in a host with
> 1MiB of memory. 64KiB isn't enough for anything other than maybe CPM.
> Even MPM won't cut it, I don't think.
There were serveral UNIX 6th Edition-based "Mini Unix" variants
I quite agree - the PDP 11/70 was quite a high end 16 bit machine, but it
was the machine that I was talking about and the one I would most like to
revisit (although I wouldn't turn down an 11/40 if somebody offered me a
working one). I don't think I would contemplate putting Plan9 on a machine
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:20, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> saving every bit of memory has costs in coding, the pressure wasn't as
> strong any more.
> the earned flexibility can be used for more elegant design.
i should have said could, not can :)
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:25 PM Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
> Does anyone know what platform Plan9 was initially implemented on?
My understanding is that the earliest experiments involved a VAX, but
development quickly shifted to MIPS and 68020-based machines (the "gnot"
was, IIRC, a 68020-based
Does anyone know what platform Plan9 was initially implemented on? My guess
is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit comfortably
into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial implementation was
done targeting a machine with significantly more resources, it would be
On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:03:49 -0400 Dan Cross wrote:
> plan9 is breathtakingly elegant, but this is in no small part because as a
> research system it had the luxury of simply ignoring many thorny problems
> that would have marred that beauty but that the developers chose not to
> tackle. Some
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 17:15 Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 19:03:49 -0400 Dan Cross wrote:
> > plan9 is breathtakingly elegant, but this is in no small part because as
> > research system it had the luxury of simply ignoring many thorny problems
> > that would have marred that
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:07, Dan Cross wrote:
> My guess is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit
>> comfortably into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial
>> implementation was done targeting a machine with significantly more
>> resources, it would be easy to
On 10/9/18, Bakul Shah 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
> On 9 Oct 2018, at 14:08, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote:
> So I don't think it i would be worth a substantial rewrite to get it going.
> It is a shame that there don't seem to have been any more powerful machines
> with a comparably elegant architecture and attractive front panel :)
Yes, that is exactly what prompted the thinking about Plan9 on a PDP11/70.
I have already organized a PiDP11 kit to be shipped to me when I get home
in December - so that I can experiment without running the risk of blowing
up my old original 11/70 front panel. But a (simulated) 11/70 with a nice
Mail list logo