Eris Discordia wrote:
MS-DOS never had Unicode support. Neither did any Windows version up to
3.1, NT 3.5, and 95. NT 4 introduced it into the Microsoft sphere in
1996. In 5-6 years--from 1996 to 2001--Windows surpassed Plan 9 in
Unicode handling, in all practical aspects.
I'm pretty far from
Uriel wrote:
You could always import /net from a 9grid node in a (more) free
country ;) (Maybe SA should start filtering 9P connections ;)
Peace
Glad to hear that device remoting has some practical applications :-)
Given the US Department of Homeland Insecurity, we may need that in the
US so
andrey mirtchovski wrote:
Mozilla didn't create the web. The web created Mozilla.
just change Mozilla to Mosaic and see how P→Q suddenly becomes Q→P
Good point
erik quanstrom wrote:
these are tetonic forces. there's nothing directly
As a geologist, I can't let this one slip (pun intended.) It's tectonic.
erik quanstrom wrote:
why are you flaming somebody who's offering reasonable
opinions?
Probably because it was late and I was err celebrating something :-)
That temporary lessening of inhibition in combination with the language
in the e-mail to which I responded being particularly arrogant re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Utility computing is perfectly fine as long as it is balanced by
original development, but it is poisonous if it preclueds any original
participation. Open Source is one form of rebellion, but it lacks the
robust foundations of sound program development. Plan 9 is a
Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
- Modify the kernel (it is based on Unix - even Microsoft says so)
Sure it is...in the same way that VMS is based on UNIX (which means not
at all)
Russ Cox wrote:
If you want to violate a convention, Plan 9 won't stop you,
but in doing so you give up compatibility with programs that
depend on that convention (bind /net/tcp /proc; ps).
Sure, you could replace ctl and clone and other special files with reads
and writes at magic offsets,
Bruce Ellis wrote:
please keep this off the list. you fixing something for a change.is as
interesting as my puppy shiiting outside.
good doggy,
brucee
Unlike your waste of bandwidth? Bad kitty! Don't pee on the list!
Chad Dougherty wrote:
Robert William Fuller wrote:
I don't use Python for this very reason. This is probably why Ruby
exists. I will not use your language for the same reason. By
adopting such draconian white space rules you automatically alienate a
large number of programmers.
A
Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
Put it this way: It's unwise to make program structure depend on
invisible characters.
There's a language made entirely of said invisible characters, called
Whitespace. It's esoteric, but it works. And Python, which has the same
style, is a phenomenal success. Whether
Iruata Souza wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't care if you agree with Bill Gates on the issue. The problem
is that everyone has about 30 different ways of solving the problem
and there isn't a definite solution that will cause something
12 matches
Mail list logo
