On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM, ron minnich<rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Uriel<urie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Because the whole point of the project was to replace 9load, and the >> way plan9 systems tell 9load what kernel to load is using plan9.ini > > no,
yes. > the point of the project was to have a new way to load that did > not require 9load Right. > or 9fat or any legacy at all. Wrong. > I am surprised you > would tie yourself down to legacy that way. Or I'm not. 9fat might be 'legacy', but unlike 9load it causes no problems or wasted duplicated efforts, is simple and reliable, it is convenient because can be accessed from other OSes, and is used by most Plan 9 systems to store their kernels and plan9.inis To replace 9fat we would need something that at least shared all its advantages, and I have not seen any proposal that does. > Do we stick with that file format forever? is it perfect and never to > be changed? plan9.ini is certainly not perfect, and I'm happy to see it changed some day, but that was not what the project was about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because apparently the bits I wanted have been written (or so I'm told) and should work (if I'm not mistaken) just fine in a backwards compatible fashion using russ' boot scheme. uriel
