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 > 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. 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.
