Re: [dev] 9base-3

On Fri 07 Aug 2009 at 00:56:29 PDT Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>2009/8/7 Antony Jepson <antonyat_AT_gmail.com>:
>> On 2009-08-06, Charlie Kester wrote:
>>> Help me understand the pro's and con's here.  Why/when should I use
>>> 9base rather than plan9port?
>>
>> You could do a little research here to save us all some time.  But, I
>> feel generous, so:
>>
>> The major differences between the two are size and the included
>> programs.
>>
>> $ pacman -Si 9base
>> Download Size  : 5828.02 K
>>
>> $ pacman -Si plan9port
>> Download Size  : 30772.74 K
>>
>> plan9port includes sam, acme, rio, and 9term whereas 9base doesn't.
>>
>> Think about it this way, 9base has the everything you need to run 'werc'
>> and nothing else (i.e. no GUI tools).
>
>Yes 9base can be used if you just write rc shell scripts with a
>reliable tool chain (eg all included commands like cat, sed, ls, etc
>behave consistent, regardless of the platform).

Thank you for your generous replies!

I was curious to know why it was thought worthwhile to release what you
have confirmed is essentially just a subset of another package. Perhaps
there was some usage scenario I wasn't seeing, or some difficulty in
discarding the unwanted parts of the bigger package?

I have no problem doing my own research, and don't want to make improper
demands on anyone's time. But when it comes to understanding why
someone else has done something, there's no substitute for asking,
Received on Fri Aug 07 2009 - 22:32:22 UTC