From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:45:01 -0600 From: "Tod Beardsley" To: 9fans@9fans.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [9fans] Plan 9 != Inferno... right? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4bb7efc6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 and the United States' policy on electronic surveillance , please do not IM/e-mail me anything you wish to remain secret.