From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <464B9E3C.4030207@conducive.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 08:13:48 +0800
From: W B Hacker <wbh@conducive.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Warning: Rant. Please disregard. [Was: Re: [9fans] Is IBM
References: <7ef5ae17a4e4c6afa2f09e32cb0625c8@proxima.alt.za>	<464B9474.9090206@conducive.org>
	<5d375e920705161651w2a25e84ex10ababb6c6af360a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d375e920705161651w2a25e84ex10ababb6c6af360a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 690a7708-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Uriel wrote:
>> Think PDA, phone handset, 'thin client' (terminal) and the 
>> heavy-hitters for
>> storage and computation located somewhere else on the network.
>>
>> Sure - the need is being filled with WinCE, Palm, Symbian, even 
>> stripped-down
>> Linux already.
>>
>> But if ever there was a market born to take best advantage of Plan9's 
>> long suit,
>> handheld, or 'wearable' has to be the most obvious contender, and on 
>> power nd
>> bandwidth consumption as much as CPU cycles or 'local' RAM capacity.
> 
> You have to be nuts to use Plan 9 for such things when you can use Inferno.
> 
> uriel
> 

Trolling, are you?

Aside from their common roots 'native' Plan9 retains an efficiency edge over 
'native' Inferno & limbo.

Most Inferno installs seem to sit atop another full-size OS, and too-seldom is 
that OS Plan9, or even remotely similar. Efficiency is bound to suffer.

I do NOT like 'C' - but the interpreted language has not yet been born that can 
come close to matching compiled-C for speed of execution. Not to mention the 
massive weight of publically available prior art - and the 'artists' with 
experience to adapt and create.

And those do still matter.

Bill