From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 23:58:16 -0400 From: MAILER-DAEMON@iss.southafrica.NCR.COM MAILER-DAEMON@iss.southafrica.NCR.COM Subject: Returned mail Topicbox-Message-UUID: 19f3692c-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Message-ID: <19950822035816.BLRU6qmZzzi4faVYIw4XJPu7lojiSqg_KFn1sN7mLJo@z> Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- Executing: /usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer -B -C -u iss.SouthAfrica.NCR.COM!ncrlnk!ncrhub4!ncrgw1!cse.psu.edu!9fans capetown.SouthAfrica.ATTGIS.COM lynna@capetown.SouthAfrica.ATTGIS.COM smtpqer: Binary contents cannot be sent via SMTP server "/usr/lib/mail/surrcmd/smtpqer" failed - unknown mailer error 1 ----- Unsent message follows ----- >>From ncrhub4!ncrgw1!cse.psu.edu!9fans Mon Aug 21 21:04 EDT 1995 remote from ncrlnk Received: by ncrlnk.DaytonOH.NCR.COM; 21 Aug 95 21:04:25 EDT Received: by ncrhub4.ATTGIS.COM; 21 Aug 95 21:04:41 EDT Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 21 Aug 95 20:58:25 EDT Received: by colossus.cse.psu.edu id <45537>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:45:50 -0400 Received: from plan9.att.com ([192.20.225.252]) by colossus.cse.psu.edu with SMTP id <45496>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:18:16 -0400 From: rob@plan9.att.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:51:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Set User (aka su) Message-Id: <95Aug21.201816edt.45496@colossus.cse.psu.edu> Sender: owner-9fans@cse.psu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu >hp takes 100+ Kb to implement something which could be >done in fifty bytes of code in 81/2, scrolls awfully slowly >and does not handle resizing properly. >I.e. not implementing a display instead of a typewriter in >81/2 simply moved the complexity to other place (hp) and >made user interface incoherent (can't call sam in the same >window as telnet!) The point was to try new ways of working, not reproduce the old ways. I left cursor addressing out on purpose: what Plan 9 offers is a different way to edit, both local and remote. No, you can't run sam on a telnet window but you can run it in a cpu window, and we prefer that way of working. Even when connected to unix, sam -r unixmachine works fine. Sure, that doesn't work in a telnet window, but that's a minor point. Putting cursor addressing in 8B= would make it too easy to fall back to the old style of interaction, obscuring the new ideas. All your carping is really about Plan 9's interface incompatibilities with Unix. If it's that important to you to use Unix, go use it. Plan 9 is a statement about its own environment, not about how to connect to Unix using telnet. Putting the kind of support you want into Plan 9 compromises the ideas in the system itself. We oppose that. If you decide that things need to be compatible with all that's gone before, you end up on the road Unix is on. You'll get something like Spring or Mach, which are really just reengineerings of the Unix interface. An O.S. is only as good as its view of the system. Plan 9 provides a different view, and its tools take advantage of those differences. You could port emacs or whatever other tool you feel is missing, but why bother? You already have it where you work now. If you want to see what Plan 9 is about, try it as it is. The true test is not how easily you can reproduce what Plan 9 is trying to replace; rather it's how the new environment makes new things possible. -rob