On Saturday 25 July 2009 20:22:35 John Floren wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Corey<co...@bitworthy.net> wrote: <snip> > > Given the following ridiculously contrived hypothetical situation: > > > > You only had a single computer in your house, and you could only run > > Plan 9 on it... > > > > Would you opt to install and configure it with a terminal kernel, or > > would you decide to use a cpu kernel, with auth and fs services enabled? > > Or is there simply no reason to prefer one over the other given such > > constrained circumstances? > > > > I realize it's totally "against the point" to have a _single_ plan 9 box; > > but I doubt it's all that rare when you step outside the lab or the > > corporate environment and peer into the domiciles of everyday people > > using plan 9 at home for personal experimentation and educational > > purposes. > > To the contrary, I think it is highly likely that anyone interested in > Plan 9 has a spare computer to try it on, or in these days of fast > processors, big disks, and lotsa-RAM, they'd boot in a virtualized > environment. Don't bring in the tired old argument "but what about > average users who want to switch from Windows", because that's not > what happens. Everyday people do not use Plan 9, they don't even know > Plan 9 exists, they got Linux on a netbook a year ago and got upset > because it was weird. Strange adventurous people with an interest in > operating systems & software try Plan 9, and such people tend to have > spare computers around. > > If you have only one computer in the entire house, you run Linux on > it, with Xen or Qemu or whatever to run Plan 9 at the same time and > set it up as a CPU/auth/file server. Then you connect via drawterm. If > that's not the answer you want, I'd install as a terminal and just > deal with it. Or find a PIII desktop on Craigslist for $30 and use > that. Desktop computers cost less than cell phones these days. > > Of course, we could continue all day in the "but what if..." vein, in > some weird attempt to satisfy whatever particular solution you were > hoping for--if we restrict the options enough, then yes, we will get > the answer you want. >
I don't understand why you are assuming that I have some sort of pre-biased angle. That I'm framing things in order to receive a particular answer? It was just a question. From a curious user. Who wants to increase his understanding of the system and the. Anyhow: "One computer, Plan 9 only, on bare hardware - which do you prefer: terminal kernel or cpu kernel w/ auth and fs enabled? Or is there technically no reason to have a preference under the circumstances?" Your answer: "terminal and just deal with it." But unfortunately you didn't say why you would choose terminal, and you didn't explain what you meant by "just deal with it". At any rate, sorry to ruffle your feathers. Beers
