Plan 9'on ARM makes a lot of sense to me. I still think x86 is worthwhile though.
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, John Floren <slawmas...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've consumed the Kool-Aid and now believe that ARM is the proper > future for Plan 9. With Gumstix, you can get USB, DVI, audio, storage, > ethernet, wifi, 3G, all in one tiny little box, for under $200, and > with increasingly improving Plan 9 support (certainly better than > amd64, which I used--it was primitive because nobody really used it) > > John > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ppc64 and amd64 support exists. the ppc64 port is partial and is >> available publically. It is my understanding that the amd64 is >> partial and available to those who ask. Things which are missing are >> devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core >> changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit >> compilers. >> >> -eric >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan >> <vdhar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> hi all, >>> >>> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while. >>> >>> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even >>> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set. >>> >>> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of >>> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit. >>> >>> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug, >>> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as >>> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought >>> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more >>> support). >>> >>> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a >>> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware, >>> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i >>> right? >>> >>> please pass your opinion. >>> >>> thanks >>> dharani >>> >>> >> >> > >
