From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 01:57:42 -0400 From: MAILER-DAEMON@iss.southafrica.NCR.COM MAILER-DAEMON@iss.southafrica.NCR.COM Subject: Returned mail Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1a7f13dc-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Message-ID: <19950822055742.Da0Vf-4rOqGbIqYT3iAEIP0Al4Pftjd2aq6SLrnwSDA@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 23:21 EDT 1995 remote from ncrlnk Received: by ncrlnk.DaytonOH.NCR.COM; 21 Aug 95 23:21:12 EDT Received: by ncrhub4.ATTGIS.COM; 21 Aug 95 23:21:52 EDT Received: by ncrgw1.ATTGIS.COM; 21 Aug 95 23:21:41 EDT Received: by colossus.cse.psu.edu id <45506>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 23:04:19 -0400 Received: from postman.ncube.com ([134.242.8.47]) by colossus.cse.psu.edu with SMTP id <45505>; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 23:04:03 -0400 Received: from butler.ncube.com by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03528; Mon, 21 Aug 95 20:04:32 PDT Received: from skynet.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24079; Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:04:28 +0800 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 08:04:28 -0400 From: avg@postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov) Message-Id: <9508220304.AA24079@butler.ncube.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: Set User (aka su) Content-Length: 3096 Sender: owner-9fans@cse.psu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu >Sure, that doesn't work in a telnet window, but that's a minor point. "It does not work" is the euphmeism for "it will be fixed by commercial vendors, many times over, and all their fixes will be incompatible". >Putting cursor addressing in 8B= would make it too easy to fall back >to the old style of interaction, obscuring the new ideas. There is a large class of applications which do not need any fancy graphical interfaces. You insist on making them inherently more complex by forcing implementors to do graphics, their own cooked mode processing (i already found eight instances in Plan9, all of them different!) and making interaction with other systems a lot more inconvinient than it should be. >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. Sorry, i *do* use Unix, and mostly because there is a lot of things i can't do with Plan 9, because of stupid reasons. >Plan 9 is >a statement about its own environment, not about how to connect to >Unix using telnet. Ah, ok, so implementing a teletype instead of a display is a "statement". May i politely inquire why didn't you decide to get rid of command line interface completely? It is so archaic. Some people did that long time ago and already made millions. >Putting the kind of support you want into Plan 9 >compromises the ideas in the system itself. We oppose that. As i said you either confine system to research lab and hobbyists or make it able to live in the real world, where legacy systems are not going to die any time soon. >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 missed the point of my philosophy completely. The road the Unix went is because things were lacking in the initial system, not because of the inherently bad interface. It was very easy to design a good generic terminal emulator and put it into kernel, and get rid of termcap goo in applications forever. Instead, users and vendors in need of a quick fix expanded it, so it became intractable. The same is going to happen with Plan 9, if it is going to be a successful system. The lack of interface in the system will simply proliferate ugly hacks. If you have to duplicate functionality in a number of places it is an indication of a design failure. >You'll get something like >Spring or Mach, which are really just reengineerings of the Unix >interface. Does not Plan 9 include APE? To make a statement coherent you should remove it, as it makes people to use their old habits of fopening and printf-ing. It even has stty and pseudo-terminals. Why does it have telnet and cu at all? It connects people to the systems with a completely different interface (horror!). Sure, people who want to talk to Unix systems can use Unix. Also, to make the statement pure the name of "ls" should be changed, so users won't forget they're not on a Unix system. I respect people who go on hunger strikes. As long as they don't sneak food in when nobody watches. --vadim