[9fans] Plan 9 != Inferno... right?

["Tod Beardsley" <todb@planb-security.net>]

Hi 9fans --

I'm just about ready to take the plunge (again) into Plan 9 for file
serving in my home network, partly because fossil seems like a
superior file system for lots of reads, rare writes, and cheap disks
(mp3 jukebox), and partly because I've had a quasi-mystical
fascination with Plan 9 for several years, but never made the move.

So, over the last few days, I've been consuming all I can on the
current direction and development of Plan 9. Along the way, I've
started to get the impression that Inferno is perhaps a better way to
go for a newbie like me to the whole rio/acme/fossil Way. Is this
mistaken? They don't appear to be the same thing, and searching the
last six months of archives show that there isn't a lot of Inferno
talk here. But they do appear very closely related, and there /is/
some level of Limbo talk.

So, if Plan 9 applications are increasingly being written in Limbo,
and Limbo is "more native" on Inferno, should a bare newbie persist
with Plan 9, or should he simply start off with Inferno?

Not tryng to troll, honest. I suspect the answer is, "get used to Plan
9 or Limbo, then make a more informed decision later," since it's
starting to look like the differences are only in the details and new
users aren't likely to notice them early.

--
todb@planb-security.net | ICQ: 335082155 | Note: Due to Google's
privacy policy <http://tinyurl.com/5xbtl> and the United States'
policy on electronic surveillance <http://tinyurl.com/muuyl>,
please do not IM/e-mail me anything you wish to remain secret.