On Thu, Sep 6, 2018, at 1:32 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:42:52 -0400 Chris McGee <newton...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Could you get away with a much simpler, smaller hardware design and still > > run Plan 9 in a reasonable way? Maybe one side of the software/hardware > > divide has to take on more complexity to help simplify the other side? > > Look at what Prof. Nicklaus Wirth did for Oberon. > https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ProjectOberon/index.html
Oh I'd forgotten about Oberon! I started to look at it years ago, but assumed it was more complex than it actually is. It's hard to believe primary development only lasted 4 years. My point of contact with it was an OpenGL application with innovative culling of hidden objects. It was perfectly smooth, no latency; not bad for an operating system roughly in the same class as Inferno. One to put back on my to-do list. >From the preface of P.O.System.pdf > In spite of the small number of man-years spent on > realizing the Oberon System, and in spite of its > compactness letting its description fit a single book, it > is not an academic toy, but rather a versatile > workstation system that has found many satisfied > and even enthusiastic users in academia and > industry. -- The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. -- Chaucer
