On Sunday, September 06, 2026, at 12:45 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > - can we combine the simplicity of plan9 and still provide linux/bsd api (but not a step child like ape).
for me, the advantages of switching to a system as clean as plan9 over-rules any concerns about api. ie, it's a price I'm willing to pay. that said, it's a comment of limited value, seeing as I really don't understand what you're actually suggesting. to clarify further, I am aware of ape as a distant concept, but don't have any problem re-writing or porting code so that it works on plan9. that will probably come across as hopelessly naive. I can accept that. On Sunday, September 06, 2026, at 12:45 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > - can we further modularize the kernel so that we can mix and match components for specific applications (but not in the sense of kernel loadable modules). the jehanne project seems to claim to have made considerable progress in the "modularization" direction. http://jehanne.h--k.it/2017/01/06/a-year-with-jehanne.html "But to me, the main issue is that the various components are tightly coupled. *Very* tightly coupled. Since we are going to port several useful unix tools to Jehanne, decoupling will be a leitmotif of its development." To clarify, I am not qualified to judge whether any given statement or opinion is accurate. On Sunday, September 06, 2026, at 12:45 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > Note that redox people are making some noises about this as well. Redox remains a fascinating enigma. At least one colleague advocates for it fiercely. On Sunday, September 06, 2026, at 12:45 AM, Bakul Shah wrote: > - can the system allow dynamic updates (ala Lisp Systems). ..or a-la haskell? Comments are limited to suggestions that contain something I understand. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Td859d3c6cefc922f-M78d973f5d272634f211fd568 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
