From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:30:16 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3937b332-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a >> Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building >> material :-) > > interestingly, that's the Coraid approach. Well, embedded is not what is being advocated here, so I think yours is the answer to a different question. At least, I hope it is. The exciting thing is that Plan 9 (unlike, say, Starry Night) can be used in embedded appliances as well as in general purpose computing. Just not in conventional desktop/laptop computing, but, rminnich's qualms notwithstanding, how important is that to Plan 9's future? Or, to ask a totally different question, which is preferable: for Plan 9 to resemble the conventional OS offerings or for the conventional OS offerings to resemble Plan 9? I'd say you ought to pick one of those camps and branch off your version of Plan 9 accordingly. Precisely as Coraid have apparently done in a socially conscious manner. ++L