On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:29:55 PST "John Floren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 25, 2008 10:09 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > May be the problem is that people are treating plan 9 as a > > > Van Gogh masterpiece when they should be treating as building > > > material :-) > > > > I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't treat your next Van Gogh > > masterpiece as building rubble. Or treat Plan 9 as some sort of Linux > > surrogate. Why not use the real thing, considering how much less > > wasteful it would be? > > I think the point is that people talk a big talk about how great Plan > 9 is, but then don't do a damn thing with it. > At least, that's how I read it.
More or less right. Use it, abuse it, rip it apart and reconstruct it but *build* something interesting with plan9! I didn't mean to suggest people are not doing it; just that I find building stuff is much more fruitful than discussions about what should people *not* do with plan 9. A killer app *always* fills some need for a lot of people but a priori you can't know if your app is going to be the one so no point in worrying much about it. You might as well build something *you* find useful. If you want to compile plan9 with gcc, go right ahead! If you want to build a server farm, why not? If you want to port plan9 to a cellphone, great! If you want to make plan9 look like Linux, sure! The more (& different) things get built the better.
