From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S261426AbVGDRSg@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261426AbVGDRSg (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:18:36 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261463AbVGDRSf
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:18:35 -0400
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.198]:39187 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261426AbVGDRSd convert rfc822-to-8bit
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:18:33 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=d/rjHwhHsT4Kg+rFEB+7adzdf6EnxhDFBsna0na+o2l0L8rYdcTmrCPcTvtWpmr5MYZ9m5A78ix3Do39PgVLH9MjIAj92n9+0tih/uE/t0B1xsb0gLiAh8gkqTp/zzSjyOw1kFnrN+76m8wXUfj+MNIxm/vcGtFG418uyDjuybs=
Message-ID: <5a59ce5305070410182b2f2eec@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:18:32 -0400
From: studdugie <studdugie@gmail.com>
Reply-To: studdugie <studdugie@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Linux and Plan-9ness
In-Reply-To: <200506301246.PAA29464@raad.intranet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050630100119.GO11013@nysv.org>
	 <200506301246.PAA29464@raad.intranet>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

If you dropped the "Unixness" you would have to rename. Maybe Linine,
or  Linsoft, or ....

Think of all the chaos that would cause. You don't want chaos do you?
I mean really, do u want to force all the
\w*(?ilinux)\w*(\.(com|org|net))? sites and publications to rename
too? Unconscionable!

On 6/30/05, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> Markus   Törnqvist wrote: {
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 10:56:36PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> >instead of trying to get a monstrosity (albeit a very cool one,
> >conceptually) into the kernel.  Sure, it could be made to work, but not
> >without dropping our Unixness.  And if we do, we should start by
> >looking at Plan 9 =)
> 
> What's wrong with "dropping our Unixness" if it means taking an extra step
> toward Plan 9?
> 
> Why is this a bad idea?
> }
> 
> Please explain!
> 
>