Git & Conventional Browsers (Was Re: [9fans] Software philosophy)

[unobe@cpan.org]

Quoth Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com>:
> A transparent history of decisions in this matter would prevent losing
> any interesting proposals - yes, we need better than Git, but Git is
> painfully "enough" to start with, even if as I get more familiar with
> Git I'm starting to believe, hopefully wrongly, that Plan 9 may have
> to bend towards supporting symbolic links to deal with it if it is
> going to be a long run - and will raise a chuckle or two when future
> archeologists come across it. I doubt they'll be able to do any more
> than raise eyebrows when they try that with Linux.

Ori has developed git9--which I think is compatible with 9legacy when
a certain patch is applied (I think it's related to rc).  I don't
understand what you mean by it would require supporting symbolic links
in order to deal with it (git).  Do you mean working on git repos that
use symbolic links, not the many git repos that already exist for Plan
9-ish software?

> One last, not quite related matter: Plan 9 seems limited never to
> provide a conventional browsing experience for its audience. What does
> that actually say about Plan 9's future?

Opossum and netsurf are two browsers on Plan 9 that can provide a
conventional browsing experience, from what I've seen. They're not nearly as far along and polished as Chrome/Firefox, but it's a start.



------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T4f2bf7206a55a388-Mded82ec1613ca89af7a5598b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription