Talk:List of Plan 9 applications

Great job
Great job! Just a couple of nits:


 * In the "File system and server" there are a few items that are not "applications", for example fossilcons, stat and wstat.
 * A few important missing items: upas, factotum, secstore, wikifs and iostats.

I can try to do the changes myself, but as you are doing such a good job organizing everything, I'll let you do it if you like... er. I'm lazy ;) --Lost Goblin 13:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am aware about the fact that the organization needs some re-thinking. To make a start, I simply copied roughly the structure of the List of Unix programs - but it doesn't really match 1:1 an equivalent Plan 9 list. It started getting messy when I realized I had a "File system and server" and a "Filesystem Utilities" section... Will need to re-think and re-organize. (and btw, doing this work is an excellent excercise to get to know the system better :) But since there is still a lot to do, any help is welcome. (and I don't know the system that well yet, so there are several things I might be missing...) -- Csant 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, except for the two points I mentioned, I think you are doing an excellent job; and yes, it is a good way to learn the system. Fixing man pages also is a great way to learn the system ;) --Lost Goblin 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections made. Some bits are still missing, but before adding them, I am wondering about general re-organization: I am planning to have a structure closer to the Plan 9 file system structure, i.e. something along the line of: That should also remove the doubt about how to invoke applications (ip/ping instead of ping) -- Csant 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * maintain the general System software and Application software groups
 * within the System software create subgroups that mirror the aux/, ip/ , ndb/ etc program groups.

Misleading references to Unix tools articles
I am wondering if we should not change the links to the pages of standard Unix tools, and link the Plan 9 man pages instead. It is misleading to link to the unix versions of tools that have in some cases changed considerably in Plan 9. Or maybe adding clarifications to the various relevant articles pointing out that there is a Plan 9 version of that tool with some differences...

--Lost Goblin 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in some cases, it does not make sense; in other cases, however, there is not much of a difference (exemplia gratia, ed). Benn Newman 00:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very much a case per-case thing, I just wanted people to keep the issue in mind. --Lost Goblin 14:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mothra (web browser" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mothra (web browser and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)