From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  1 May 1997 15:14:49 -0400
From: Greg Hudson ghudson@mit.edu
Subject: The future of Plan9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5961bf3c-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19970501191449.5Jov40gtlmRC1Xh4q3FeBwegYu7NFF8sWjgQHIF6r8Q@z>

> 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.