From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <14ec7b180608170708t17e9b47bi35fa28f7dfa20a18@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:08:12 -0600
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchovski@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] dir tree Qs
In-Reply-To: <83f9126caeae638a3c28b472ec9a7d57@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ACCF003CBA3D09458207DB0CB86AD17D74023A@XMAIL.asuch.cas.cz>
	<83f9126caeae638a3c28b472ec9a7d57@quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a1e95e32-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

/386 contains much more than just binaries, while $home/bin/386
contains only that: binaries.

i think the rationale was that having a directory for each
architecture back when 386 wasn't the dominant one would clutter
$home. we rarely spend any time in / after all. besides, Plan 9
shouldn't expose the architecture to the user right at the front line:
what the current arch is was not meant to be something we ought to
care about.

i could be wrong, of course.