From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] native limbo
From: rog@vitanuova.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010501172941.8EFE119A06@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue,  1 May 2001 18:36:56 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 97d43cbc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

the main reason, in my view, why limbo seems so distinct from plan 9 is
that it runs in its own little box in its own little console in its own
little portion of the namespace.

changing the inferno draw device so that it was the same as plan 9's
(and hence emu could just use the plan 9 draw device, same as it uses
plan 9's /net) would go a long way towards lowering the barriers.

there's no real reason why the console always has to be visible; and
apparently it shouldn't be too difficult to get the emu window to
resize.

those changes, along with a 9p->styx (and vice versa) bridge could make
inferno much more tightly integrated with plan 9, while preserving its
useful "ultra-portability" properties.

if it was up to me (it isn't), i'd feel reluctant to start divorcing
limbo from emu - much of the power of limbo comes from the environment
in which it lives, which is essentially the whole of inferno.

i've hacked up my version of emu and wm so that the snarf buffer is
held in common with plan 9.  so i can copy out of a charon in one emu
window and paste into a terminal window in another, or into acme. i
find that this minor change has lessened to a great extent the amount
of frustration i experience due to the two separate environments.

bridging the two plumb spaces would help a lot too.

  cheers,
    rog.