From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrey mirtchovski To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Start of Tcl Port to Plan 9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:25:08 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8b46a352-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Oops, private mail made public again.. but since I made it public, here' s the mail I sent Charles (mostly to say that I don't get it either): ----- I'm sorry, I don't think I get it -- is this pro- or against? in the inaugural plan9 paper, one of the benefits of the OS listed is a single, centralized administration point? ----- pardon my clumsyness, i'm helping somebody fix a hacked web server and am cursing this non-plan9 OS world we live in.. andrey On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Charles Forsyth wrote: > i think i see: to maintain a distributed system, it's important to > centralise it. > On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, andrey mirtchovski wrote: > I'll forward you the comment I sent him.. he still hasn't replied... > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, ron minnich wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > > > > i think i see: to maintain a distributed system, it's important to centralise it. > > > > > > I don't get that comment. The 'ports' collection for freebsd is just a > > tree of makefiles, with multiple pointers in each thing to URLs to get > > source and compile it. The source is distributed world-wide. > > > > Something like this for plan9 would be very useful, but could be done far > > better. > > > > I think that's what andrey is talking about. > > > > ron > > >