From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 15:39:43 -0700
Message-Id: <200606071539.43140.corey_s@qwest.net>
From: "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
References: <12bd3e4eeac406a7b2df5a203eb80021@vitanuova.com>
	<200606071407.14245.corey_s@qwest.net>
	<20060607231633.313b478e.20h@r-36.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060607231633.313b478e.20h@r-36.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5dd6e8c2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:16, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Good evening.
> 

Hey!


> Am Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:07:14 -0700 schrieb "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>:
> 
> > _If_  one was interested in experimenting in developing an integrated 
> > graphical desktop environment on plan 9, one would use what - pure C?  
> > With what higher-level libraries would one use? Or would one write it
> > all from scratch? 
> 
> There is a "integrated graphical desktop environment" on Plan 9, even if
> you do not call it like that.
> 

Do you use Plan 9 for your general-purpose, everyday, recreational computing
environment?


> So if you really have the moral and the power to even write a line of
> code for a new "integrated graphical desktop environment" on Plan 9
> 

Well, that's sort of what I've been trying to say, (c8=

I have neither the morale nor the power to write even a single line of code
for this new  "integrated graphical desktop environment" on Plan 9 -- I
merely intend to assemble the work that others are doing; I'm like a child
clumsily playing with lego bricks. The best that I can do is help write
the gluework to get it working together nicely.

As I just now read in a different post:

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 15:33, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
"I want plan 9, not linux tarted up to look like Plan 9."

It's like this:

_Were_ there a choice between running a general-purpose/consumer-oriented
Plan 9 "distribution" of sorts, and running yet another linux distro - I would opt
for the Plan 9 "distro" ( or whatever it would be called ); this hypothetical
operating system would of course only be interesting so long as it were
designed complementary to the very cool underlying Plan 9 concepts.

But there currently is no such incarnation/form of Plan 9, and so I sometimes
find myself idly speculating on what sort of task it would be to create one, and
what this conceptual operating system might look like were it embarked upon.


> then it would be done with underlying file servers, where you write "low level"
> libraries, for the graphical applications, that in the end do only a
> simple write() on some file - nothing else.
> 

You give the impression that the only way of writing 9p fileservers and 
consumer-oriented applications on Plan 9 is with pure C, and that this will 
always be the only  way, and that it should always be the only way. 

You  also make it sound as though higher-level libraries and/or object-oriented 
programming on Plan 9 are a complete waste in all circumstances.

I honestly don't understand, but I'm also very ignorant - which is why I was
hoping for friendly explanations on how and why my assumptions don't meet 
the reality. I think the primary rift is that the idea of a general-purpose,
user-grade version of Plan 9 is distastefull and/or useless.

Anyhow, I'm probably just becoming line-noise at this point.  (c8=


Cheers!

Corey