Re: [9fans] Installed Plan 9, now what?

[a@9srv.net]

i'm with dan on this point, i think. my concerns here, however, come
from being a plan 9 administrator. we ran our own file server, and did
overlays on top of 1127's files when we wanted something changed, just
doing binds where we wanted them. it worked great, for the most part; a
real testament to the strength of the architecture. 

the problems came when 1127 changed things. well, of *course* they did;
it's a research system! our system of binds helped us manage local
changes in a way that was easy to manage and track, but it required
duplicating whole files (not to mention a /lib/namespace that was
several hundred lines long!). it was frustrating when, once or twice a
year, i'd have to track down some config file that'd changed and port
the new changes in 1127's version into our version, when all we
typically wanted was setting some variable differently than 1127 had.

if "local" files exist (whatever they're called), they should all ship
empty, or simply not exist. if something's not working right after
some upgrade, it's easy to figure out if it's local site mods that're
causing the error, and easy to tell where the changes - both from the
"vendor" and the local user - are.

i have to professionally (that is, i'm paid for it; saying nothing
about the manner in which i do it) manage a hadfull of unix boxes,
with some collection of GNU or other third-party software, and the
mess around config and site localization there is horrid. i'd very
much like to avoid duplicating that. but the current situation - which
is, as dan said, essentially ignoring the issue - is far from ideal,
too. things now are an order of magnitude easier to follow than in the
linux/GNU world, but could be better still.
ア