From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <16c92c57f1d27fe3631417e7279cf6a4@9netics.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: RE: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:06:26 -0700
From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <HOEHIDJJJINMLFPOLFJCOEMNDFAA.nigel@9fs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f1b836c6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.

Moral relativism doesn't apply to ugly code (and cannibalism).

> Are you telling me that Google would be demonstrably better
> built on Plan 9? I can't see that, and nor would any of
> their customers, because the kernel is hidden from view.

Better and different.  They could do things that they can't do
(easily) now.  When you multiply not-easy by a large number, it
becomes an impossibility.  I think the statement about "Bringing data
to the user instead of the other way around: Those damn browsers are
still in the way" is very telling.  And yes, there would be a
practical problem of building Plan9 administrative expertise -- mostly
a mater of time.

> Most users in the world don't see the code, and don't care
> about it's uglyness. They care whether something works and is
> easy to use.

But we're not talking about everybody.  Somebody has to,
and many of the people here have worked on systems that are
the guts of many things being used now.