From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Nielsen To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9 Message-ID: <20031017201737.GT834@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <8729920c861416829cc369d0a3247e5d@plan9.escet.urjc.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8729920c861416829cc369d0a3247e5d@plan9.escet.urjc.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:17:37 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7152c9fc-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote: ... > Regarding drivers and the like, it's likely that we get them done as some of us > need them. ... How else do drivers get written? :) That's exactly why I wrote the 48-bit LBA support for the ATA driver. I needed it. I would like a better multimedia subsystem so I don't have to use a MacOS or Windows to produce music, so I'm trying to work on that. I would like better SCSI controller support, so when I have the time (and no one beats me to it) I'll work on that. My point is that Plan 9 isn't dead as long as we keep developing it, which some of us are doing. -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin