Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9

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

Well, in Plan B we made an experimental /cmd, where processes
were files in the sense that mkdir created one process, cp was used
to supply the binary and the like. It did work, but it seemed more
convenient to use the distributed plumbing to deliver cmd execution
requests, and then, ox, the shell underlying omero, is in charge of
executing the commands. Now we are back into /proc.

On 6/9/06, quanstro@quanstro.net <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> which is to say that plan 9/unix don't take files to that extent.
> processes are not files, for example, /proc notwithstanding.
>
> - erik
>
> On Fri Jun  9 16:34:08 CDT 2006, nemo@lsub.org wrote:
> > >
> > > Lisp machines/environments did this 25+ years ago.
> > > Everything is an s-expression is even more fun than
> > > everything is a file!
> >
> > I don´t agree. The problem with lisp is that you don´t have
> > protection. Didn´t you manage to bring down the whole emacs
> > by, say, implementing your CD player in elisp?. Now, in
> > Plan 9 processes are really isolated. If one of them crashes, the other
> > ones stay alive (Probably).
>
>