From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: suspect@suspicious.org Subject: Re: [9fans] fortune-worthy To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:52:45 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a7669294-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 I am saddened by the fact that Inferno did not become the primary research focus after its initial commercial demise via the inferno BU. My reason for saying this is, there is more incentive to develop applications for Inferno than there is for Plan 9, since those applications could be used on a multitude of platforms. It seems to me that with Inferno, it was said "we took all the lessons we learned from Plan 9 and built a better system", and then, it was all just discarded (by the primary researchers, (politely disregarding for the moment, VN)). Given how little manpower is left at the labs, unrealistic as it might seem to some, I'd be glad to see the two systems merged, for the sake of both surviving. The silly thing is, this is already happening to a certain extent with Inferno 4e picking up 9P2000, and slivers of factotum, venti etc., as well as drivers. Why duplicate the effort ? Why not take the best of both worlds ? cheers, On Dec 17, 2003, at 9:29 AM, David Presotto wrote: > While I'm happy about links, it doesn't really solve many of my > problems.