On Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:39:07 PM erik quanstrom wrote: > On Thu Apr 28 15:30:38 EDT 2011, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday 28 of April 2011 20:50:14 Brian L. Stuart wrote: > Life is > > too short to configure and compile Linux and > GNU software. > > > > or spending days on choosing a computer with all the hardware > > supported. oh wait. > > that's not how you do it. you spend about the normal amount > of time checking, and then when you get the machine you fix > what's left. :-) > > i've just configured an new xeon 1155, which has had a nic > that wasn't quite supported (pch2 lan + 82579 phy), and a > wierd lapic/ioapic configuration. > > all told, it was only about a day to get it working. > > now i could have spend that amount of time with an os that might > have supported everything out-of-the-box, but it's doubtful that i'd > have it even configured yet. >
I'd be more excited about quick compile times on plan 9 when I can use plan 9 to check my bank account, watch youtube videos, and order movie tickets or pizza over the web. But I still need a loonix box to do those things, so I still need to suffer the horrors of glibc[1] and ~760M kernel sources - which is unfortunate. I understand why plan 9 avoids posix and unix and gtk+ and the gnu toolchain - or flash, or firefox, etc., etc. - but it would be nice if it had fuller, more complete support for "the web". I wish AWE would manifest. APE - "a posix environment" vs. AWE - "a web(kit) environment". Alas, if wishes were fishes... (we'd all be rich fishermen). Though I don't understand why folks around here complain about "linux" so often and so vehemently, when the only reason why you're complaining is because you _need_ linux... to furnish all the things you can't do with plan 9 - either personally, or within your organization. [1] For those gnashing teeth over glibc - might want to check out musl libc. It's no plan 9 libc, but it's definitely "less worse" than glibc.
