On Monday 29 March 2010 14:09:32 erik quanstrom wrote: > > Day to day computer work will not generally be done on a Plan9 terminal > > until Glenda finally overcomes her profoundly crippling case of > > automysophobia. > > <snip> > > unless you're going to do something about this, you're just > trolling. >
(c8= Heheh... when it's critical of other existing projects and systems - which goes on all the time here - it's o.k.; but when it's critical of plan 9, it's known as 'trolling'. <wink> > i find plan 9 to be a very effective environment. i use it > all day, every day. > > if you don't, the logical choices are to (a) do something about > it or (b) do something else. > In any given social environment, communicating dissatisfaction of the status quo is often the logical first step towards choices (a) and/or (b) - due to the fact that going off on one's own to work alone in a vacuum on a major undertaking is generally recognized as an inherently ill-fated strategy. > imho, it just doesn't make sense to add this kind of stuff > to plan 9. it dimishes something very valuable in plan 9 > (simplicity) and we already know where to get gnu stuff. > Understood, and appreciated. I guess the situation is that there appears to be plenty of people who _imagine_ something "very valuable" in seeing the base Plan 9 concepts and idioms being applied within a different context beyond that of rigorous 'radical purity and simplicity' - yet after 15 years, there still is no experimental general purpose Plan 9 distributions/projects under way. Is it that the core Plan 9 design concepts[1] are in fact inappropriate or uninteresting for anything beyond that which Plan 9 currently provides? The answer continues to blow in the wind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Design_concepts
