From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9
From: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011107125817.80067199BB@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Wed,  7 Nov 2001 07:58:15 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 18361c86-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> My idea is that these two should be unified (keep in mind I'm talking
> about "some future system", not suggesting a big design alteration of
> existing systems).

So you keep saying, and so we believe.  But why?  To what visible
effect?  So far all you've claimed is efficiency, which is not an
issue, and elegance, which you haven't quite demonstrated yet since
the distinction between public defaults and private adjustments
requires some sort of extra mechanism or at least extra instance of
mechanism.

System design is about artifacts and should lead to tangible benefit.
I remain unconvinced in this case.  In fact, the issue has hardly
been addressed; saying 'should be' in every post is not an argument.

So again, why?  Give me an example of something your notion
accomplishes that we can't do now and that is worth doing.

-rob