Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST)
From:      Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
Cc:        jasone@FreeBSD.ORG, cluster@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs?
Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010106211028.22348A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101061756500.15097-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Ronald G Minnich wrote:

> I strongly recommend before you go this direction that you check out the
> way Plan 9 processes work. It's quite beautiful, since the operations on
> remote and local processes all work the exact same way. 

Distributed mach was nice that way also -- the message passing primitives
were location independent.  Every time I start looking at this stuff, I
start thinking about how it's a pity a bit more Mach didn't make it into
BSD.

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
robert@fledge.watson.org      NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010106211028.22348A-100000>