From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  8 Jun 2006 00:56:35 +0200
From: Christoph Lohmann <20h@r-36.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Message-Id: <20060608005635.4a210c34.20h@r-36.net>
In-Reply-To: <200606071539.43140.corey_s@qwest.net>
References: <12bd3e4eeac406a7b2df5a203eb80021@vitanuova.com>
	<200606071407.14245.corey_s@qwest.net>
	<20060607231633.313b478e.20h@r-36.net>
	<200606071539.43140.corey_s@qwest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e074f12-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Good evening.

Am Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:39:43 -0700 schrieb "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>:

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

Yes.

> 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.

So why are you discussing this, when you are not going to write any source
code?

> _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.

That is only a propaganda position and not a technical one. Propaganda is
boring.

> 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. 

No, I said, that we use file servers in Plan 9, that speak 9P or the
appropriate syscalls. C is just good taste, but you can still do the
same in whatever language you like.

> 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.

Yes they are, but that is only a question of taste.

> 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.

First define "general-purpose", "user-grade", "distastefull" and
"useless".

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

Yes.

Sincerely,

Christoph