Re: [9fans] Compiling 9atom kernel WAS: Re: spaces in filenames

[errno <errno@cox.net>]

On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:21:12 AM Jacob Todd wrote:
> Seeing that plan 9 doesn't have a c++ compiler, i doubt it will ever be
> ported.
>

But APE has c++  (old version of gcc though).  I expect that a webkit
(or gecko) port would need to rely on APE, right?

I guess I'd have to start with the build dependencies first, some of
them might already be on contrib somewhere.


> Cinap runs opera 9, flash 7, even blender under linuxemu, though.
> You might want to take a look at it. 9hal.ath.cx.
>

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll check it out.


> you can also use vnc on
> plan 9 if you 'need' to use the web.
>

Yep, I'm aware of the vnc workaround... but, it's just the same as
a native, or near-native approach.

If the goal was to build a plan 9 network in my house for my friends
and family to use, for the purpose of easy administration, according
to plan 9 distributed practices - then needing to have linux/bsd boxen
completely defeats the purpose, and is counter-productive.


On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:32:09 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
> i don't mind a good lively discussion, but these comments seem
> a bit trollish to me.
>

I have/had no intent, no interest, and no benefit in trolling; please don't
accuse me of being antisocial. I apologize if "disingenuous" was the wrong
term.


>  why don't we get back on track?
>

Ok:

On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:32:09 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 03:19:23 AM errno wrote:
>> But then again, why would anyone want a fully functional web
>> experience on Plan 9 - what would be the purpose?  Apparently
>> nobody does, otherwise it'd be implemented already.
>
> that's not logical.
>

I operated on the understanding that Plan 9 gets developed according
to peoples' desire to scratch particular itches. I was also operating
under the impression that the clean and well-designed nature of plan 9's
abstractions and architecture would facilitate making hard problems easier.

Rather than offering speculation, from which to be knocked down and/or
insulted for, I figure maybe I should just ask:

If it is accepted that people do in fact want a fully functional native (or
"native-ish") web experience on Plan 9, what is the logical explanation for it
still not existing after so many years?

(by "web experience", I'm not talking about porting firefox and flash to Plan 9
- I'm talking about native or ported libraries for what wikipedia refers to as
a "web browser engine" or "layout engine"; and by "fully functional", I'm
talking about something that can score at least an 80% or so on the acid2
test.)