i don't know what compromise you're talking about; anything that can implement and use 9P is a legitimate component to attach to Plan 9. browsers are the predominant way that users connect to the Net; websockets in html5 provide the ability to establish a full duplex tcp connection. why shouldn't we want to use the browser as a 9P server or client?
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Peter A. Cejchan <tyap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > i am very unhappy seeing this kind of discussions here (and, the wasted > potential to do something more useful in my eyes, sorry, but IMHO)... it > resembles me very much the times when Steve Jobbs compromised the ideas of > the NeXTstep, first downgrading it to the OpenStep for Windoze users, then > downgrading to MacOS X...... look, what happened to linux, bsd, etc: it's > all approaching the silly model of windoze, you'll kill me but its IMHO... i > don't want zillion of comp. languages to learn when they are capable of > mostly the same ... please, please, Bell Labs people, please, do not > compromise the ideas... believe me, it was not very much easy to me to throw > away all the boilerplate apps served on linux and do the C port of many > (>70) of them to switch to native plan9, but i feel it was one of the best > decisions in my (professional) life, and remember, i am not a programmer, i > am a paleobiologist, hence , user... > Just my sad feelings... native plan9 deserves more focus than it gets, > imho... i would hate to see plan9 as a plugin for Mozilla 20.0 > > Sincerely, Peter, aka > ++pac > a proud user of plan9 since 2001... > >
