On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, erik quanstrom <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I seem to remember Mjl, the author if the inferno ircfs, wrote an >> ircfs for Plan 9 ages ago. Still, seems like a total waste of time >> when you have a perfectly fine one in limbo, which is a much more >> convenient language for building such a thing anyway. >> > > the op said he was running plan 9. if we take that as a > reasonable thing to be doing, then it makes sense to > want to run native plan 9 programs for a number of > reasons. first, if the op doesn't have any inferno running > already, he doesn't need to install and figure out how > to run it. not that this is hard, but it is important to > admit this is an extra step. once installed, plan 9 tools > like ps and kill won't work on inferno procs. so one > need to either deal with the disconnect or write some > scripts to make it less evident. > > none of this is specific to plan 9 and inferno. the same > could be said using bsd and 9vx or linux and a browser > running browser procs. > > so, since an ircfs is not a huge project, i don't think > it's unreasonable to write one for plan 9. it's what i > would do. > > - erik > >
Yeah, I think your arguments make perfectly sense. I would still be interested to know whether Akshat had the same thoughts in mind:)
