From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 00:10:55 -0700
Message-Id: <200605260010.55740.corey_s@qwest.net>
From: "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5481cb8e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


However I'm curious:

When would one prefer/opt to use/deploy Plan9 over Inferno, 
and/or vice versa?

As far as I've been able to tell, it appears that Inferno is pretty
much Plan9, but with a couple "additions" - namely: Limbo and
Dis - and thus a different development model. Do they both use
the same kernel? How much common userland do they share?
( is "Styx" just a renamed 9P2000? )

To rephrase my question:

To what extent(s) does Inferno differ from Plan9? What approximate
percentage of Inferno consists of Plan9 v4?

( I'm not yet looking for pros/cons of either - just what the actual,
fundamental technical/functional differences are. )

Thanks for the clue!  I come from a unix client/server background,
so I'm still working at simply getting my head around this "new"
environment from a 40,000 ft. view.

I've become very interested in distributed computing, as approached
from a Plan9 perspective, and I am very much appreciating the general 
"keep it small, clean/correct and focused" mentality/objective which 
is very apparent.

Thanks!