From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <93198fd06809a16f4a19e427e72b0f4e@quintile.net>
From: "Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:52:50 +0100
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9base ports to unix
In-Reply-To: <89d1e7b8050819053245099105@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 794f5432-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Hi,

> I did so, because for writing rc scripts, which is my favorite
> scripting language already, it sucked to be dependent on dynamically
> linked bloat binaries from GNU. I measured that a simple sleep call to

Not wishing to troll, but genuine interest - why do you prefer a port
of plan9's rc to a staticially linked version of Byrons rc rewrite?

For me there is nothing to chose unless you have a lot of scripts from
a plan9 system that tickle the changes Byron made. I find the differences
between Plan9 and Linux sed more of a pain.

-Steve