On Apr 29, 2011 6:21 AM, "errno" <er...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 02:04:26 AM Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > > [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.
> >
> > ``News: As of version 0.7.7, musl has been successfully bootstrapped by
a
> > third-party system integrator.''
> >
> > hmm. they had to do more than just compile it?
> > a library has to be `bootstrapped'?
> > i blame the parents.
>
> Really?
>
> I think it's fair enough to say that your standard library has been
> "bootstrapped" upon the first instance of it being baked into a
> new platform as the native libc.
>
> https://github.com/chneukirchen/sabotage
>
>
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 02:18:26 AM Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > > complaining is because you _need_ linux... to furnish all the things
> > > you can't do with plan 9 - either personally, or within your
> > > organization.
> >
> > it's true, but at least i haven't got to run either Windows or MacOS.
> > the underlying problem is that the things we might simply import (mainly
> > browser) can't simply be imported. it's not just us: you might have
> > noticed that Google's Picasaweb runs under Linux by including a copy of
> > Wine as part of its iceberg. also google in any alternative-os list you
> > like for a discussion of the hopelessness of ./configure
> >
>
Afaik, google has been distributing picasa with wine for years, it doesn't
act like an intermediate solution, it seems told be their solution.
> Icebergs are justified when used as a temporary stop-gap until a native
> solution is devised and implemented. Thus, a webkit environment ("AWE")
> seems like a pretty decent compromise until Plan 9 is finally able to
treat
> the wild wild web like a first-class citizen.
>
Seeing that plan 9 doesn't have a c++ compiler, i doubt it will ever be
ported. Cinap runs opera 9, flash 7, even blender under linuxemu, though.
You might want to take a look at it. 9hal.ath.cx. you can also use vnc on
plan 9 if you 'need' to use the web.
> I have no clue how difficult it would be to port webkit to Plan 9 though,
> but I imagine it would be easier than writing a pure Plan 9 web browser
> engine (html, css, dom & ecmascript) from scratch.
>
> (I just do basic backend web programming and linux systems administration
-
> so I'm just speculating.)
>
> But then again, why would anyone want a fully functional web experience
> on Plan 9 - what would be the purpose? Apparently nobody does, otherwise
> it'd be implemented already.
>
