From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <32768.67.85.61.176.1076042449.squirrel@www.infernopark.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] nice hardware for a cpu server
From: <vdharani@infernopark.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <010501c3ec4d$b9e70d70$8201a8c0@cc77109e>
References: <010501c3ec4d$b9e70d70$8201a8c0@cc77109e>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Date: Thu,  5 Feb 2004 23:40:49 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ce3950c8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> all i need is a hosted inferno on any os which has functionality
> or resources that are either impractical to port or proprietary.
> why would i write troff in limbo when i can use 'os troff'?
> rob said in very early inferno days something along the lines
> of "don't just rewrite everything in limbo, it's a different world".
> the ghostscript example has always been there as a one-liner.

but wouldnt it be nice having everything in limbo and use it in all
platforms that run inferno? in the troff example, yes, you can do it. but
imagine you have troff in limbo. the benefits are definitely much more.

i feel limbo is a simple, nice language with which one can write reliable
apps. i am really surprised why people (including creators, people at the
lab, and rest of the 9fans) tend to ignore limbo.

i recently saw something like "370 Applications in Java" in a magazine
cover and wondered why limbo is so ignored even by us (9fans, inferno
fans). what is the actual problem? is it to do with licensing? or
something really wrong with limbo?

i understand existing apps that are huge and written in C may be difficul=
t
to port to limbo. but why cant we write atleast new apps in limbo? if
licensing is an issue, cant vita nuova fix it or relax it for the sake of
saving both plan 9 and inferno?

regards
dharani