From: Greg Hudson ghudson@mit.edu
Subject: The future of Plan9?
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 15:14:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19970501191449.5Jov40gtlmRC1Xh4q3FeBwegYu7NFF8sWjgQHIF6r8Q@z> (raw)
> I have to make changes to individual machines remotely then reboot
> them rather than making _one_ change on _one_ fileserver.
If you have to reboot the machines after making the change, then
presumably making the change on a file server wouldn't help. But
ignoring that inconsistency, you're quite right that scalability is a
big problem with Unix systems, and it doesn't get any better with
Microsoft or Apple products.
> The central idea of Plan9 with a *single* unified structure for all
> architectures is intensely appealing.
Plan 9 is not the only operating system that runs on multiple
architectures. Solaris, Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all run on
multiple targets, and I suspect NetBSD runs on more of them than Plan
9.
> I think a real big problem with 'hobbyist involvement' is (as
> rcannings(?) points out) is that $350US is a bit of a chunk for a
> hobbyist to plunk down for the distribution.
The price in itself is damaging but not fatal; a lot of good OS
development effort comes out of universities, where finding $350 to
buy a Plan 9 distribution is easy. But why would I want to spend my
time working on a proprietary system when I can work on my pick of
freely redistributable Unix systems?
I'm not happy with the state of the OS world today, but if Plan 9
wants to be considered as a step in the right direction, it has to
either have real commercial backing or be free. From my opinionated
point of view, AT&T's lawyers and management consigned Plan 9 to the
permanent status of "interesting curio" when they set the distribution
policy. Maybe Inferno will go somewhere else.
next reply other threads:[~1997-05-01 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-05-01 19:14 Greg [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1997-05-08 4:39 Adam
1997-05-06 0:45 Eric
1997-05-05 14:02 Brandon
1997-05-04 9:04 Markus
1997-05-02 22:04 Bengt
1997-05-02 12:26 Digby
1997-05-02 0:59 Digby
1997-05-01 18:28 Eric
1997-05-01 16:04 Berry
1997-05-01 15:25 Tom
1997-05-01 12:46 bwong
1997-05-01 7:45 Steve_Kilbane
1997-05-01 3:54 Digby
1997-04-30 23:48 Scott
1997-04-30 21:11 rsc
1997-04-30 20:09 Lucio
1997-04-30 17:06 Digby
1997-04-30 7:38 Borja
1997-04-30 6:01 Brandon
1997-04-29 23:28 Alex
1997-04-29 23:06 Digby
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=19970501191449.5Jov40gtlmRC1Xh4q3FeBwegYu7NFF8sWjgQHIF6r8Q@z \
--to=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).