From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:41:09 +0100 From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <730eae2365e8ddd3220c84d7de81b8a1@quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5d375e920901180314t48cde099t3f36fea79afd180d@mail.gmail.com> <730eae2365e8ddd3220c84d7de81b8a1@quanstro.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?q?Les_Mis=C3=A9rables?= Topicbox-Message-UUID: 823e3e1a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> >> I seem to remember Mjl, the author if the inferno ircfs, wrote an >> ircfs for Plan 9 ages ago. Still, seems like a total waste of time >> when you have a perfectly fine one in limbo, which is a much more >> convenient language for building such a thing anyway. >> > > the op said he was running plan 9. if we take that as a > reasonable thing to be doing, then it makes sense to > want to run native plan 9 programs for a number of > reasons. first, if the op doesn't have any inferno running > already, he doesn't need to install and figure out how > to run it. not that this is hard, but it is important to > admit this is an extra step. once installed, plan 9 tools > like ps and kill won't work on inferno procs. so one > need to either deal with the disconnect or write some > scripts to make it less evident. > > none of this is specific to plan 9 and inferno. the same > could be said using bsd and 9vx or linux and a browser > running browser procs. > > so, since an ircfs is not a huge project, i don't think > it's unreasonable to write one for plan 9. it's what i > would do. > > - erik > > Yeah, I think your arguments make perfectly sense. I would still be interested to know whether Akshat had the same thoughts in mind:)