From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 01:14:03 -0500 From: Russ Cox To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] More 'Sam I am' In-Reply-To: <9565D95F-4469-4E07-8BB8-0D0F3F2860E7@orthanc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <87931329-9EBB-46E2-96F7-B265742DB585@orthanc.ca> <9565D95F-4469-4E07-8BB8-0D0F3F2860E7@orthanc.ca> Topicbox-Message-UUID: f78a994c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Was there ever any intention that > > sam -d foo < sam.cmds > > would make for a modern-day version of ed(1) on Itaniums? > > > there are various 64-bit fixes to sam that are > > in plan 9 but not yet in the p9p code. > > It's late, and my brain is off. I guess this means 'X' is the > answer. I suppose I've been looking for an excuse to use it. Okay, I give up. I have no idea what you meant in your first message. I thought you were asking about sam not working on Itanium (64-bit) processors. I suppose in your second message you might mean 'X' as in the X Window System, but I don't see why that would fix anything. If sam -d doesn't work, running samterm (the X interface) won't make it start working. Completely lost... Russ