From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <11d846ba1d1323cc1e956b2f67dfa6ec@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:01:47 -0500
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] More 'Sam I am'
In-Reply-To: <0a40e57b4fa1fc9cd7020b2d240214d6@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fa8a4516-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Many years ago now, a good friend of mine remarked that
if we actually made all those whining about the state of things
now compared to the "good old days" go back to using v7 Unix,
they would quickly realise that times had actually moved
forward and there were things they were used to that it didn't
have and that they really needed. I used v[567] and I've
ported v7, and I wouldn't go back. From what I understand,
Plan 9 was an attempt to build on that by saying "this got
us so far, but times are changing and it won't cut it with
networks, bitmapped displays, SMP etc, we need a better base".
That was a long time ago and no one has, to my limited
non- computer science knowledge, attempted anything similar,
they're all still working on copying 30 year old technology.

I don't have an iPod, my mobile phone is 5 years old and I
turn it on about 4 hours a week and there are many things
about the 21st century that make me grumpy. But you can't go
back. You should, however, be careful about how how you
go forward.

--jim

On Fri Feb 10 19:12:00 EST 2006, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:
> isn't this the "i don't trust new software" argument resurrected?
> let's all install V7 from mag tape on our pdp-11s. ;-)
> 
> sorry. i couldn't resist.
> 
> - erik
> 
> On Fri Feb 10 16:54:45 CST 2006, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > > Would you pick
> > > XML or ASN.1 if those were the only two options?  If the pointy-haired
> > > powers that be are mandating one or the other and, ``neither'' isn't in
> > > the range of possible solutions?
> > 
> > What are the alternatives?  My pick is ASN.1, any time.  You can call
> > the ITU-T by as many ugly names as you like, but their standards are
> > considerably more firm than more recent publications.
> > 
> > ++L
> >