> I'm just about ready to take the plunge (again) into Plan 9 for file Welcome to the pool. The water's great.
> started to get the impression that Inferno is perhaps a better way to > go for a newbie like me to the whole rio/acme/fossil Way. Is this > mistaken? For rio/acme/fossil, you do want to go Plan 9 and not Inferno. Inferno's windowing system isn't rio, but acme is there. Unless I'm out of the loop on something, there isn't a fossil port to Inferno, though I think there's a venti port. > They don't appear to be the same thing, and searching the > last six months of archives show that there isn't a lot of Inferno > talk here. That's partly because there's a separate Inferno list. And you're right that they're not the same, but are closely related. The original Inferno kernel was based on (and used code from, I think) the Plan 9 kernel that was current at the time. So as you might guess there are a lot of design elements that are common. But at the same time, there are a lot of pretty major differences. I'd say they're both worth diving into. BLS
