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>