From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:39:44 -0500
From: Luther Huffman, Jr. lutherh@infinet.com
Subject: Plan 9 articles and reviews
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c78b72c-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19960222183944.Kxp2jhQY0RckxkcsxB-TqMqEvyA65H-5IoYqRWZmkz8@z>

   I have learned a great deal from the articles and reviews about
Plan 9 and Inferno that I've read lately. Unfortunately very little of
my new knowledge has anything to do with Plan 9.
   I've seen a UnixReview review of Plan 9 that was based on
impressions of what P9 looked like on other people's machines because
the reviewer wasn't able to install it on his machine.
   I've seen a ComputerWorld article that turned a simple fact (AT&T
licensed Java technology) into an implication that AT&T lacks
confidence in Inferno. It seems to never occurred to the writer that
there might be another plausible explanation (such as Inferno being
able to run Java binaries.)
   I've seen another writer excuse major inaccuracies as due to "time
constraints". How long does it take the writer to post a query to
comp.os.plan9 or 9fans? The email addresses of the entire Plan 9 team
are even available from the Plan 9 home page.
   The question that comes to mind is if reporting on one little area
in which I have a mote of knowledge is so inaccurate, how can I depend
on these people's reporting on all of the areas about which I know
nothing?
   Things to think about when my subscription renewal notices show up.