|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 290 responses total. |
ball
|
|
response 235 of 290:
| 
Mar 11 05:10 UTC 2006 |
I suspect Plan 9 has more scant hardware support even than
NetBSD ;-)
|
cross
|
|
response 236 of 290:
|
Mar 11 14:39 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
ball
|
|
response 237 of 290:
|
Mar 11 16:44 UTC 2006 |
Out of interest though, what makes Plan 9 good?
|
twenex
|
|
response 238 of 290:
|
Mar 11 22:04 UTC 2006 |
Having more than one machine spare!
And sorry, but they got the Plan 9 windowing system VERY wrong, unless they
now believe in dictating policy as well as implementation. In which case, both
the windowing system and they are wrong.
|
ball
|
|
response 239 of 290:
|
Mar 11 23:27 UTC 2006 |
Re #238: ?
|
naftee
|
|
response 240 of 290:
|
Mar 12 03:00 UTC 2006 |
?[3~[3~
|
cross
|
|
response 241 of 290:
|
Mar 12 14:32 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 242 of 290:
|
Mar 12 15:41 UTC 2006 |
> they get it in their heads that the way Linus et al do it is the One
> True Way
This is probably because Linux is the first unix-like operating system
these people have ever used. It was pretty much that way with me.
|
remmers
|
|
response 243 of 290:
|
Mar 12 17:58 UTC 2006 |
Hey, at least Linux and X11 are actually used by lots of real people to
get useful stuff done. Plan 9 seems to be mainly a platform for
generating superior attitudes and academic papers on operating system
design.
|
ball
|
|
response 244 of 290:
|
Mar 12 18:34 UTC 2006 |
Re #241: I'm not so sure about Linux, but I like X. I like
the ability to run a client program on whatever machine
happens to be most appropriate and have its output display
to (and keyboard/pointing device input from) whatever
machine happens to be in front of me. I also like the fact
X makes no attempt to dictate my choice of window manager.
I imagine X predates Linux and it's developed by different
people.
|
cross
|
|
response 245 of 290:
|
Mar 12 19:37 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
ball
|
|
response 246 of 290:
|
Mar 12 23:16 UTC 2006 |
X works for me. It's nice that it's cross-platform too. Is
Plan 9's windowing system confined just to Plan 9?
|
cross
|
|
response 247 of 290:
|
Mar 12 23:46 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 248 of 290:
|
Mar 13 01:54 UTC 2006 |
I think there's also an X11 wm that's meant to look like rio.
You're right, Dan. X11 DOES suck. And so does UNIX, whatever flavour. The
trouble is, they're SO much better than That Other System in SO many ways,
and Plan 9 is SO little known, that its suckiness is (almost) irrelevant. Now,
if I'm wrong about the window manager thing, then fine. But don't assume I'm
just some ignorant Linux fanboy. I also use (and happen to prefer) FreeBSD
on one machine. I can also see lots of areas where linux went wrong, like
kernel module support. But I suspect that unless you're a kernel programmer
(which I'm not), and/or you have a few machines kicking around that you can
power constantly just to have a distributed OS (which I don't), then Plan 9
really wouldn't look much more attractive to you than Linux/BSD. (As an aside,
imho Plan 9 still doesn't do device management correctly: /dev/dev/ and
/dev/devctrl is certainly an improvement over /dev/dev/ and ioctrl, but the
OS should include facilities for decoding whether what's written to /dev/dev
is a command or data, instead.
As for the bad old days; point taken. But I know that lots of people prefer,
and always have preferred, developing for UNIX rather than Windows, and
developing for Mac OS Classic (especially early versions) sounds like a
nightmare. Let's face it, aside from some shining lights (now sadly mostly
dimmed), programming graphical applications on just about ANY platform in the
eighties must have been the GUI equivalent of batch-mode-only OSES. Did I
mention it sounds painful?
|
cross
|
|
response 249 of 290:
|
Mar 13 03:11 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 250 of 290:
|
Mar 13 03:46 UTC 2006 |
Is Plan 9 free software?
|
twenex
|
|
response 251 of 290:
|
Mar 13 12:41 UTC 2006 |
Re: 249. OK, maybe that ouldn't work!
Re: #250. What's your definition of "Free software"?
|
cross
|
|
response 252 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:46 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 253 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:49 UTC 2006 |
Re: #252. "Approved by the OSI" does not mean that it is approved by Richard
Stallman and the GNU/Free Software Foundation people. The OSI-approved
software stack *includes* (all?) software approved by the FSF, but the reverse
is not necessarily the case.
|
cross
|
|
response 254 of 290:
|
Mar 13 14:58 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 255 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:02 UTC 2006 |
And I quote:
"...There was a shakey start with Stallman and the OSI people..."
|
fudge
|
|
response 256 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:23 UTC 2006 |
r#253: thankfully RMS hasn't got the right of veto for software worldwide.
|
ball
|
|
response 257 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:25 UTC 2006 |
I think I should network my next home with Ethernet
(probably a combination of 10baseT, 100baseTX and perhaps
1000baseT over cat-5e and RS-485 (over Cat-3?)
|
ball
|
|
response 258 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:27 UTC 2006 |
)
|
cross
|
|
response 259 of 290:
|
Mar 13 15:29 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|