On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:27 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
At least in case of cpu(1) the magic is a bit perverse and quite
unlike the rest of the system. The way notes are managed make
a local end of a cpu(1) jump through considerable hoops in order
for the notes to be properly delivered. That was a sad discovery.
Another discovery was that devcons.c could have made DEL work
but decided not to :-(
talking about it is the easy part. why don't you code something up?
Good question. I guess the easiest way to explain would be that
I am not actually using Plan9 for anything as a standalone system,
but rather as a source of inspiration (yeah, may be it is lame to say
something like that -- but here I'm saying it anyway). Everytime I
have to implement something for Solaris/Linux I usually take
a look (unless I remember) at how similar things were handled
by Plan9. Most of the things I've looked at are true gems in terms of
ideas and coding. Really, really elegant stuff.
A small number of things, however, make me go "Huh?". Which is,
usually, a sign of me not being smart enough to instantly recognize
the constraints these things are dealing with. But how am I to know
for certain that they are not the rarest case of an oversight?
One way would be, as you suggested, to start hacking things up
and coming up with better solution. I suspect that in 90% of the
cases I would end up fully appreciating why it was coded the
way it was. That would be the .u way ;-) Very rewarding, but also
quite time consuming.
Another way (which I try NOT to abuse) is to talk about it here.
In the hopes that even if I'm making a total fool out of myself there
will be somebody idle enough to quickly enlighten me.
Does that sound fair to you?
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. I would love to have any project related to Plan9/Inferno proper
as my day job, but right now I'm reduced to UNIX and 9P
at best :-(
