On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Anthony Sorace <[email protected]> wrote:
> erik wrote: > > > it's interesting to compare this with the sleezy not-paths > > that e.g. gnome programs can take, like uris. great as long > > as long as you don't care to use anything but gnome tools. > > i had that debate with a kde-loving linux admin. i had been explaining > why plan 9 was interesting or significant, and he countered with the > kde example. i was marginally impressed by the number of protocols > they handled, but when i asked how you'd use it with cat and friends, > he said "no, just use kate". > > i reeled, stuttered, tried to get out something that sounded like > "layering violation", and ran away. it wasn't even a cost/benefit > argument; there wasn't any recognition of the costs. > > Right but when you consider KDE runs on windows, then it's not as much of a layering violation... no more than Java is I guess anyway. The layering violation that I usually point at is the /dev/tcp created by the bash shell :-).
