From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:38:05 +0000 To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC From: "Paulo Pocinho" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <527bfc81c448c7b653cae364272421af@proxima.alt.za> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <527bfc81c448c7b653cae364272421af@proxima.alt.za> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.25 (Win32) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36c3337e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> I'm not van gogh, and I want to use the systems now, not after I'm dead. > > And you do, to the best of your abilities and to the extent that you > can. But have you ever stopped to analyse the mutually exclusive > aspects of GNU and Plan 9 that you require? How do you propose to > resolve them? > > ++L > Plan 9 is a model, a research system to provide answers to Unix deficiencies. It is better to take that model and use it than pretend it is a piece of art to hanging on a smelly GNU wall... Why has it been so dificult to port GNULand to Plan 9 but not the other way arround? To apply the model to the unix-like world you use (/procfs, etc.). Make use of that model in *new* technology. (CLONE_NEWNS is out there...) Of course, this is my opinion. Nevertheless it does not excuse people who are stubborn to accept the fact that Plan 9 is a research model (which happens to allow you to take it as a solid OS). To bring the Unix model back into Plan 9 is paradoxical.