From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Josephson To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp Message-ID: <20011008120252.B34170@honk.eecs.harvard.edu> References: <20011008050535.4DEB9199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from greon@best.com on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:37:59AM -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:02:52 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01fbfa6c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 08:37:59AM -0700, Richard wrote: > I do it all the time (at least 5, 10 times a month) on Linux, because > I'm kind of compulsive about maintaining just the right names for data > files I care about. > > The point is not that it is necessary, but rather that millions are > already used to being able to do it, and letting them do it on Plan 9 > (provided of course it is implemented cleanly) will lower the obstacle > to their become Plan 9 users. But Plan 9 is not Unix and the more one tries to make it look like Unix, feel like Unix, or quack like Unix, the more grief one comes to. Under Unix I use mv to move trees around fairly frequently (as often as once or twice a day), although at least half the time it is across partitions so the point is moot anyway. The urge to do this disappeared pretty quickly when I started using Plan 9 to the exclusion of Unix this summer. I'm more of a neat-freak when it comes to directory structure than most and I still didn't feel the loss. Perhaps having a real fileserver makes the difference, but I'd suggest living for a while with Plan 9 as Plan 9 and not Unix and see if you still find it intolerable. I think the biggest obstacle to using Plan 9 is knowing that it was built in the same room as Unix. -WJ