From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:11:04 -0400 From: rsc@research.att.com rsc@research.att.com Subject: The future of Plan9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 58fbb714-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-ID: <19970430211104.C1tFNp7kxhiYEzRF0qGyt5qMm_laYuCIKknTHL44-OA@z> I want to address a couple supposéd shortcomings raised by Digby. He writes that it's main inconvenience is its inability to communicate with other operating systems effectively. This is half correct. I have found that Plan 9 communicates particularly well with any operating system, and that this is a strength. Through u9fs, I can access any Unix system through a simple and well documented protocol. Ftpfs, dossrv, and the other file servers are good ideas as well. A couple days ago, I `operated' on a broken DOS floppy in a Linux floppy drive using a Plan 9 system 15 miles away via u9fs because all the good disk editing/looking utilities I have are on Plan 9. At the heart of all this is the fact that the file servers all operate in user space and are more easily hacked at. People have written file servers that handle Linux e2fs file systems, BSD's FFS, and others. File system clients are a lot easier to do under Plan 9 than under, say, Linux, where everything has to be done in the kernel. I've found that Plan 9 is the best operating system for accessing other systems. I will concede that accessing Plan 9 *from* other systems is harder than it need be. I do a lot of mail-reading and occasional programming telnetted into Plan 9 from a 80x25 text-mode Linux box at school, and wouldn't mind seeing a `vi' or something else small and cursor-addressed, even if the vt100 codes were hard coded. I also wouldn't mind seeing 9x revived. I would do it myself except I don't use X at all anymore. I expect to be using X a lot in a couple of months, and I might get sufficiently annoyed to do it then. Perhaps the best way to do 9x is to write one that runs under Inferno? Just a thought. Russ