> -----Original Message----- > From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-boun...@9fans.net] On Behalf Of > Corey > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:39 AM > To: 9fans@9fans.net > Subject: Re: [9fans] Mars Needs Women (was Re: TeX: hurrah!) > > > I appreciate your time and consideration in your responses, thanks! > > You made several points and asked several questions this email, however it's > difficult for me to answer them because they appear to > be put forth under the idea that "Plan X's" purpose is to natively host > common popular consumer-level, end-user applications of > various sorts under Plan 9, and/or to port gnu to Plan 9. > > There also seemed to be a lingering impression that I'm suggesting that Plan > 9 proper - the official distro - should be subject to the > changes proposed by "Plan X". > > However I think it's crucial that the current official Plan 9 distro continue > as it always has. And I don't personally see enough value in > the notion of gnu gcc and autotools being ported, or firefox and gtk, etc..
I don't see any value at all. This makes me wonder why you bring up... > I do see value in porting LLVM/Clang, which would help enable, for instance, > a forked and customized _subset_ of the EFL core > libraries (not the E wm), ported and running like a native Plan 9 citizen via > /dev/draw instead of X. Could you elaborate? While looking into the LLVM's source, several times, is mostly garbled crud (although better than GCC), and they severely over-optimize. I also don't understand why one would choose the EFL? It's not even stable yet. Unless my memory fails me, the EFL was in C++. I could be wrong on this though. You're basically asking to re-write a compiler and libraries, and call them a port. I'm not sure I understand what you're thinking. > I'm imagining an alternative Plan 9 distro that jettisons just a couple > select characteristics of the system which drastically increase the > net sum total alien'ness that tends to obfuscate and/or divert attention away > from (what I believe to be) the more important aspects > of the Plan 9 experience, such as the ones I listed previously: > > * 9P > * mutable namespaces > * union directories > * ubiquitous fileservers > * transparent distributed services > > Slightly more POSIX - but not total POSIX compliance - in addition to a > non-gnu compiler that supports modern standard C dialects and > other C-based languages would be an enabler for a greater number of people > hoping to apply Plan 9 concepts under a broader and > more general variety of purposes. This I don't understand at all. Why would one need a separate Plan 9 distribution? Why don't you improve APE, and write compilers for the languages you need? There is no need for a fork. > But even all that begins to miss the original attempted point of my first > post: the idea that perhaps it could be beneficial if there were > some means for interested Plan 9 fans to rationally discuss and speculate on > different potential expressions of Plan 9 based operating > systems. > > Attempting to do so here on 9fans continues to be a traditional source of > agitation and flames, tempered with a healthy dose of shut > up and code. (that's not an accusation or scornful judgment, just a statement > of a "thing"). Yes, well no one codes. It's not so much shut up, as it is, stop asking us to do it. A good building isn't designed by slapping any good idea into it. A good bridge isn't either. Good medicine isn't created by putting any chemical that helps in. They are engineered for ideal effectiveness. Plan 9 is in many ways, the same. All we ask for, is a reason why what people want to add is a good thing. Just simple rationale. You're a free being and free to do as you please, no one is stopping you. > I thought that perhaps talking in terms of what "a 'Plan X' _might_ look > like" would be less divisive/threatening than talking in terms of > what "Plan 9 ought or ought not become". > > > Cheers
