From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:21:36 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4; KDE/4.4.2; i686; ; )
References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com>
	<201004161658.00902.corey@bitworthy.net>
	<20100417072842.GA5241@shrizza>
In-Reply-To: <20100417072842.GA5241@shrizza>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201004170321.36466.corey@bitworthy.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Mars Needs Women (was Re:  TeX: hurrah!)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0582bda4-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Saturday 17 April 2010 00:28:42 SHRIZZA wrote:
> Long-windedness aside, your thought process is fairly sound.
>

Sorry for the annoying verbosity.  It's difficult for me to express the
ideas more succinctly in a manner that reduces the risk of flames
or misunderstanding.

> However, keep in mind that Plan 9 represents an escape from the
> perversion of Unix.
>

That remains a valid, useful, and extremely valuable design goal.

It's imperative that the current official Plan 9 sources and distro
remain undisturbed.

> Is a compromise between Plan 9 and "Plan X" worth the risk of
> history repeating itself?
>

I realize I'm not omniscient - heck I'm not even very talented! - but
I'm not seeing how LLVM/Clang, and a little more POSIX (where
necessary to help port and 9'ify _select_ libraries) - induces a significant
risk of folks aiming to UNIX'ify (or LINUX'ify or GNU'ify) "Plan X".

The GNU/*NIX'ification of a Plan 9 based operating system just
seems to be a completely counter-productive, non-viable endeavor.
I couldn't imagine such an act of sheer pointlessness to gain much
traction.

Though I can imagine reasonable temporary stop gaps being used when
necessary, to be deprecated once the kludges in question are replaced
with their appropriately 9'ish solutions.


Cheers