Re: [9fans] Plan 9 != Inferno... right?

["Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart@bellsouth.net>]

> I'm just about ready to take the plunge (again) into Plan 9 for file

Welcome to the pool.  The water's great.

> started to get the impression that Inferno is perhaps a better way to
> go for a newbie like me to the whole rio/acme/fossil Way. Is this
> mistaken?

For rio/acme/fossil, you do want to go Plan 9 and not
Inferno.  Inferno's windowing system isn't rio, but acme
is there.  Unless I'm out of the loop on something,
there isn't a fossil port to Inferno, though I think
there's a venti port.

> They don't appear to be the same thing, and searching the
> last six months of archives show that there isn't a lot of Inferno
> talk here.

That's partly because there's a separate Inferno list.  And
you're right that they're not the same, but are closely
related.  The original Inferno kernel was based on (and
used code from, I think) the Plan 9 kernel that was current
at the time.  So as you might guess there are a lot of
design elements that are common.  But at the same time,
there are a lot of pretty major differences.  I'd say
they're both worth diving into.

BLS