Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Nov 2008 22:45 UTC, submitted by pablo_marx
OSNews, Generic OSes Linux distributions come and go by the dozens almost every day, and most of them live and die an unknown, irrelevant life, mostly because no, changing three icons and adding the suffix '-nix' to any random word doesn't make it different from Ubuntu. Anyway, sometimes, a new distribution is started that brings something new to the table. One such "distribution" is Glendix, which aims to combine the Linux kernel with the userpsace tools from Plan 9. Distribution is probably not the right term for this project.
Thread beginning with comment 338493
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Nice name choice
by heron on Thu 27th Nov 2008 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice name choice"
heron
Member since:
2005-08-07

What exactly were you running it on? I've never had a problem with Plan 9 crashing at all.

Besides... just because it crashes on your x86 doesn't mean it won't run smoothly elsewhere.

And, no, I didn't say everything that is posted on slashdot is the truth, but the story does seem credible. If you search "Plan 9"+BlueGene on google you'll see that there has been work at IBM on this.

So... you're basing your disbelief on some pixels you think you see? Could you be specific beyond a "feeling" on what is leading you to believe that it is photoshopped? Or is it simply that you don't believe that anything but Linux could do this?

GC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Nice name choice
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Nov 2008 15:02 in reply to "RE[5]: Nice name choice"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Or is it simply that you don't believe that anything but Linux could do this?

Architecturally, Plan 9 is ideal for this use. Built from the ground up as a distributed system, the concept of "processor server" is basic to it (as are display servers, storage servers, print servers, camera servers, etc.), all communicating happily via 9P. As to how well optimized it, and its compiler is for this use, I don't know. According to the Glendix paper, KenCC, written in only 1/17th as many lines of code as gcc, can do everything that gcc can. One could be forgiven for having a few doubts about that, though.

Edited 2008-11-27 15:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Nice name choice
by heron on Thu 27th Nov 2008 15:16 in reply to "RE[6]: Nice name choice"
heron Member since:
2005-08-07

Have you ever seen GCC's source code? I can tell you from experience that I have no problems believing that a smaller, better written compiler is possible. There's a decent amount of bloat there.

Reply Parent Score: 1