Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9

["Francisco J Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>]

Just my view, but I think the same happen to me time ago. At the
risk of opening a flame war, this is what I mean.

After first installing and using Plan 9, I quickly tried to get unix stuff
ported to Plan 9. Then, I came across the "getting started with plan 9"
paper from dmr (don´t remember the title exactly, sorry). In few words, it
was a warning that: Plan 9 is not UNIX.

Then I forced myself to use the native tools for a few days and I saw that
most of the stuff from unix I wanted to use had more appropriate replacements
in the system. Plan9 is spartan and lean, and also very effective.
very much like UNIX was.

I agree that we don´t have too many applications, however, I think that
porting GNUstep could perhaps be an overkill.

For example, GNUstep depends not just on the compiler, but also on many
services you find today on Linux and similar UNIXes. Trying to pull that into
Plan 9 would force you to pull many other stuff as well.

hth

On 6/7/06, Corey <corey_s@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Two questions - quite likely naive, so please be kind!
>
> #1 - How difficult approximately would it be to port a
> more current release of gcc to plan9, say 4.1?
>
> #2 - I've been daydreaming about seeing whether I
> could get GNUstep ported to plan9, but I'm still curently
> way too unfamiliar w/ plan 9 to assess how realistic/possible
> that would be - someone else in another thread recently asked:
>
> "If you have gcc on plan 9, will simply compiling the unix code work?"
>
> I'm basically wondering the same thing.
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
>
>