David L. Craig wrote:
On 14Nov27:2301-0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:David L. Craig wrote:With the GUI out of the way, we can focus on the user-space system. My proposals for that foundation are Plan 9 and Go (with C for the performance parts).Actually, that was written by Marty <martyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.ummm folks... before starting to chant "plan 9" it would behoove us to understand what plan 9 actually is it's primarily an extension of core concepts, specifically: - extending the concept of all objects as files or file systems - incorporating network communications more thoroughly - adding the notion of private namespaces it's a step beyond Unix, and a good one, but probably not a starting point for "a more modular Debian ecosystem"Well, you can just recompile your favorite apps in it, certainly. Plan 9 is officially an R&D OS but it has acreted a lot of stable and amazingly straight-forward paradigms that work very well together. They kept what they considered the best of UNIX but tried out a lot of second-generation ideas that mostly turned out quite well (the /proc hierarchical filesystem and UTF-8, for example). The main Plan 9 flavors are Bell Labs, 9front, and Inferno. Don't be too quick to write it off, IMHO.
I'm not writing it off at all - it's a great o/s, and the 9p protocol is particularly interesting in its own right.
What I'm questioning is whether it's a starting point for a "modular Debian ecosystem" - in that it is explicitly neither Linux nor Unix, and doesn't have a base of Debian packaged software to start with.
Maybe it's time to migrate to Plan9, or to put energy into packaging applications for Plan9, or even a new Plan9 distro - but somehow that doesn't seem like the basis for a "more modular Debian ecosystem."
Respectfully, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra