// What I am beginning to understand from comments like // this is that there is a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done // by the originators of "club Plan-9" is correct, period. No // mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new ideas // occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of // rationalizing "club Plan-9".
No, that's not what's going on, and I'm sorry if you've felt attacked. The issue is not that "different==bad" or that what Ken, Rob, & co. have done is infallible. It's just that it seems as though you have not taken the time to understand the reasons behind things being the way they are. There is a reason (or set of reasons) we're using Plan 9, as opposed to doing everything on Linux or whatnot. The system is designed with a different set of principles in mind. My "~27 years" comment was not intended to start a years- of-experience pissing match (although arguably I should have anticipated it). My point is rather that the tool's been around for quite some time in productive use, and has undergone changes over that time. It would be wiser to take some time to understand why it is the way it is before concluding that it's been broken for all that time. No, we don't assume that it's correct, either, but it does shift the burden of proof a bit. Also, it's "Plan 9" or "plan9"; never "Plan-9". Anthony
