From owner-freebsd-cluster Sat Jan 6 18:11:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0477B37B404; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 18:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f072BN722371; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ronald G Minnich Cc: jasone@FreeBSD.ORG, cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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