Slashdot Mirror

This is the opinion of plan 9 authors WRT microkernels and other things:

The implementers of Plan 9 are baffled by Andy Tanenbaum's recent posting. We suspect we are not representative of the mainline view, but we disagree at some level with most of the "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" truths Andy claims. Point by point:

      - The client-server paradigm is a good one
        Too vague to be a statement. "Good" is undefined.
      - Microkernels are the way to go
        False unless your only goal is to get papers published. Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel we know and offers more functionality and comparable or often better performance.
      - UNIX can be successfully run as an application program
        `Run' perhaps, `successfully' no. Name a product that succeeds by running UNIX as an application.
      - RPC is a good idea to base your system on
        Depends on what you mean by RPC. If you predefine the complete set of RPC's, then yes. If you make RPC a paradigm and expectevery application to build its own (c.f. stub compilers), you lose all the discipline you need to make the system comprehensive.
      - Atomic group communication (broadcast) is highly useful
        Perhaps. We've never used it or felt the need for it.
      - Caching at the file server is definitely worth doing
        True, but caching anywhere is worthwhile. This statement is like saying 'good algorithms are worth using.'
      - File server replication is an idea whose time has come
        Perhaps. Simple hardware solutions like disk mirroring solve a lot of the reliability problems much more easily. Also, at least in a stable world, keeping your file server up is a better way to solve the problem.
      - Message passing is too primitive for application programmers to use
        False.
      - Synchronous (blocking) communication is easier to use than asynchronous
        They solve different problems. It's pointless to make the distinction based on ease of use. Make the distinction based on which you need.
      - New languages are needed for writing distributed/parallel applications
        `Needed', no. `Helpful', perhaps. The jury's still out.
      - Distributed shared memory in one form or another is a convenient model
        Convenient for whom? This one baffles us: distributed shared memory is a lousy model for building systems, yet everyone seems to be doing it. (Try to find a PhD this year on a different topic.)

How about the "CONTROVERSIAL" points? We should weigh in there, too:

      - Client caching is a good idea in a system where there are many more nodes than users, and users do not have a "home" machine (e.g., hypercubes)
        What?
      - Atomic transactions are worth the overhead
        Worth the overhead to whom?
      - Causal ordering for group communication is good enough
        We don't use group communication, so we don't know.
      - Threads should be managed by the kernel, not in user space
        Better: have a decent process model and avoid this process/thread dichotomy.

Rob Pike
Dave Presotto
Ken Thompson
Phil Winterbottom

There already is a smaller scale version of Silicon Valley roughly centered on Boston, Massachusetts. The partial circle defined by Route 128 (and to a lesser extent the larger one surrounding it defined by Route 495) has most of the required properties already. Heck, it even has the same elevated levels of Asperger's Syndrome that Silicon Valley has.

I think a bigger point is the number of colleges and universities in the Massachusetts area (like MIT, Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University, to name just a few). Plus, besides Boston, there are numerous other technologically advanced places in that ring (including Cambridge, Saugus, Waltham, and Billerica, to name just a few). If you do a look-up on the saga of ODF and the history of OASIS and/or GNU you'll find a lot of these places mentioned -- OASIS originated in Massachusetts, the Free Software Foundation is headquartered in Massachusetts, and AFAIK Massachusetts was the first government to sanction a special "Open Source Software Trough" to encourage the usage of open source software within both its own branches as well as its local community governments. It's not clear to me where the weird view that Massachusetts is somehow against free software, open source and information sharing that some are espousing is coming from...

While I listen to Jay Severin, too, the name "People's Republic of Cambridge" predates Jay.

What I find humorous is that a Google Search of that phrase returns the official City of Cambridge website as the first match.

There are no standards. Some places use high-tech electronic voting systems, others use an "X" on a slip of paper counted by legions of elderly women (I don't know why elderly women, they just seem to be the overwhelming majority of counters.)

State Electoral Commissions oversee (in some places) County State Electoral Commissions oversee (in some places) Municipal Electoral Commissions. Voting technology can be specified at any level & are most often left to the local areas.

Results are generally tabulated & reported via telephone calls by designated offficials to specified telephone numbers using pre-agreed-upon passwords to identify themselves with call-backs to confirm authenticity. This also varies widely with computer-based systems becoming more common but the call/password/call-back is cheap, established & reliable.

The Press & Campaigns are notified via two methods - either they'll have a person on site at the Election Commission Office or they'll also use the call-in method using passwords.

Furthermore as most should know by now (it's a standard news story that gets dusted off & rerun every year) a vote for US President doesn't actually mean a vote-for-the-president. Instead there's an Electoral College making sure your Vader2000 write-ins don't go anywhere. Finally not all places use Simple Majority for local elections, for example Cambridge, Mass. uses Proportional Representation for it's local candidates.