[9fans] Oil on the water

[9fans] Oil on the water

[James]

> We are considering doing a new distribution of Plan 9, the system we have
> been calling Brazil internally to distinguish it from the released system.
> It's not promised or even decided yet, but given the recent discussions
> in 9fans it seems worthwhile to explain what we're thinking about.

It is good to read that it is at least a possibility.  Focusing on the
PC probably makes sense these days, since the hardware is cheap. If,
as I've read, Brazil has multi-processor support for x86 architecture
then it should prove plenty fast as well.

>From what what I've read on this list, it seems like there are some
differences of opinion between the researchers and the lawyer/management
folks at Bell Labs.  It's too bad that this happens -- I think Linux has
shown how useful an open policy can be for developing and enhancing the
value of an operating system.  The downside is fragmentation and what some
view as the "corruption" of the concepts behind the original design.

DigbyT brought up an interesting point: outsourcing Plan 9 distribution
to a real technical company might be a good way to generate money and
have that group handle the headache of distribution & installation
support. I wouldn't get our hopes up though -- I imagine that if Brazil
is released, it will need a lot of polish before vendors see a potential
source of revenue.

Of course, one idea might be to deal with Walnut Creek -- they have
an enormous FTP resource, and sell CD-ROMs of their archive at cheap
prices.  If Bell Labs would be willing to open Brazil up a bit and
allow folks to contribute/develop/polish Plan 9 into easy-to-install
form, it just might take off like Linux has.  Might that be worth
the initial effort from Bell Labs?


> The main obstacle to a release is pragmatic: the work of putting
> together a coherent package of hundreds of programs and the better part
> of a million lines of code is not something to be undertaken lightly.
> There were several man-years of documentation work alone in the last
> distribution.  We don't relish going through all that again.  Also, there
> are inevitable difficulties with distributing a bootable OS that do not
> arise when distributing a single application.  As you all well know,
> these were a major source of trouble with the last distribution.

Out-sourcing, letting groups of people make Plan 9 distributions, might
be  just the solution for this. The Linux Documentation Project has
made great strides, and the various distributions (Debian, Slackware,
Redhat, SuSe, etc.) have become very impressive compared to the original
installs I used (SLS).  SLS used to have sparce documentation, was hard
to install, and wasn't very user friendly. But thanks to the open policy,
there is now an enormous amount of high-quality documentation and there
are quite a few easy-to-use installations.

Course, the lawyers probably don't like that idea. It is odd -- shouldn't
it be obvious that if Plan 9 releases 1 and 2 didn't take off, that the
current scheme might not be the optimal way to get this research OS into
the hands of those interested in OS research? :)


> If we wait to get all those cool things done that make a distribution
> worthwhile for all concerned, you'll have to wait quite a while.
> Discussions continue on how and when to proceed.  Meanwhile, the system
> improves.

If you release something now, and then let people set up a system to
merge improvements back into the publicly available version, couldn't
your people then take the parts they liked and eventually merge version
4 into the public tree?  This is similar to how the Linux groups work --
not every modification gets back into the kernel, but the good ones do,
as well as any improvements from the dedicated kernel writers.  I think
the public might have something to offer back to Bell Labs, if we get
access to modern software as a starting point.


> Any release is likely to be done over the web, on a `fee-free basis
> for noncommercial use' (that is, no $350 price tag).  However, the
> necessity for negotiations for commercial use will almost certainly
> remain.  There will probably be no CD or other artifact, to keep costs
> down and simplify publication of updates.

I think the FreeBSD group has a large CVS tree that all their projects
reside in. They then have a web interface to this tree, which lets people
easily scan changes that others have made, and import those changes into
their own copies. Perhaps that might work for you folks?  Problem is,
how to justify the labor from a commerical organization's point of
view. But perhaps external contributions might make it worth that?
I imagine there must be at least some people out there who have good
ideas that would prove useful to Bell Labs development.


> Please don't get too particular about licensing details now; it's far
> too early and out of our (CS Research's) hands, in any case.

It's too bad you folks don't get more say about the external future of
the programs you brain-storm, design, and develop. :-(


Jim

[9fans] Oil on the water

[forsyth]

>>environments as well as their hardware, so from that point of view, Plan 9
>>would be almost as much a turn-off for them as Wintel.

you haven't seen the new-look screens in delicate pastel colours.
charming.

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Digby]

>>There's more, but I'm sure it has all been considered.  plan9.>advocacy, 
>>anyone?  :-)
>
>In Japanese Univ., there are many of maniac Macintosh 
>users who  don't want to change their PC.  Are there 
>anyone working to make Macintosh as Plan 9 terminal?
>
>Or, is this a special case only in Japan?
>
Sounds like Japanese Universities are incredibly enlightened
places :-)

My university here in the UK specifies PC & the evil OS as the
required platform for their courses, and I have heard that
Universities in Australia are now offering Visual Basic and ActiveX
subjects :-(

I am not a fan of Apple or their operating system, but the hardware
is nicely made, and their user interface brilliantly designed for
people who just want a computer as a work tool.

The though of Universities basing courses on Plan 9, and supporting
non-Intel hardware, makes me wish I spoke Japanese...

Regards,
DigbyT
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Oil on the water

[steve_kilbane]

On 24/09/98 08:28:38 okamoto wrote:

> In Japanese Univ., there are many of maniac Macintosh
> users who  don't want to change their PC.  Are there
> anyone working to make Macintosh as Plan 9 terminal?
I was also under the impression that Mac users were rabid about their
environments as well as their hardware, so from that point of view, Plan 9
would be almost as much a turn-off for them as Wintel.

steve

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Nigel]

No problem. Use morse. It works for MacOS.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Elliott Hughes [SMTP:Elliott.Hughes@genedata.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, September 24, 1998 8:34 AM
> To:	9fans@cse.psu.edu
> Subject:	Re: [9fans] Oil on the water
> 
> > [Is] there anyone working to make Macintosh as Plan 9 terminal?
> 
> i think the one-button mouse would be something of a handicap.
> 
> -- 
> http://users.ch.genedata.com/~enh/

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Elliott]

> [Is] there anyone working to make Macintosh as Plan 9 terminal?

i think the one-button mouse would be something of a handicap.

-- 
http://users.ch.genedata.com/~enh/

[9fans] Oil on the water

[okamoto]

>There's more, but I'm sure it has all been considered.  plan9.>advocacy, 
>anyone?  :-)

In Japanese Univ., there are many of maniac Macintosh 
users who  don't want to change their PC.  Are there 
anyone working to make Macintosh as Plan 9 terminal?

Or, is this a special case only in Japan?

Kenji

[9fans] Oil on the water

[jmk]

	>Thanks for the update Rob. I would prefer to wait for the goodies.
	>Since the CD release it has become more difficult to find some of the
	>required PC hardware (the local used computer store knows me by 
	>first name). Would it be possible, in the interim, to make the 
	>Brazil PC device drivers available for download? 
	>
	>frankg@halcyon.com

i've given brazil drivers out when people have asked on the list,
on the understanding that they make the retrofitted drivers available.

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Frank]

Thanks for the update Rob. I would prefer to wait for the goodies.
Since the CD release it has become more difficult to find some of the
required PC hardware (the local used computer store knows me by 
first name). Would it be possible, in the interim, to make the 
Brazil PC device drivers available for download? 

frankg@halcyon.com


On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 rob@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> We are considering doing a new distribution of Plan 9, the system we
> have been calling Brazil internally to distinguish it from the
> released system.  It's not promised or even decided yet, but given the
> recent discussions in 9fans it seems worthwhile to explain what we're
> thinking about.
> 
> A release would focus on the PC version, but would probably include at
> least the sources necessary to get another architecture going.  This
> reduction in scope is partly because we have fewer variant machines
> around these days and partly to shrink the size of the work and of the
> distribution itself.
> 
> The main obstacle to a release is pragmatic: the work of putting
> together a coherent package of hundreds of programs and the better
> part of a million lines of code is not something to be undertaken
> lightly.  There were several man-years of documentation work alone in
> the last distribution.  We don't relish going through all that again.
> Also, there are inevitable difficulties with distributing a bootable
> OS that do not arise when distributing a single application.  As you
> all well know, these were a major source of trouble with the last
> distribution.
> 
> If we sent out the system as it stands now, the major benefit would
> probably be a more up-to-date set of supported hardware.  We would
> like to offer more.  We have a number of sweeping changes at all
> levels of the system that we're discussing and, in some cases, already
> working on.  If we defer those to distribute the system now, what we
> ship will soon be obsolete and you will be only marginally better off
> than you are now.  If we wait to get all those cool things done that
> make a distribution worthwhile for all concerned, you'll have to wait
> quite a while.  Discussions continue on how and when to proceed.
> Meanwhile, the system improves.
> 
> We are aware of the complications caused by the overlap between Plan 9
> (Brazil), a research system, and Inferno, a commercial product.  The
> overlap is easy to characterize and we believe the issue can be
> resolved.  The real barriers to release are, as mentioned, the work
> involved and the questions of what and when to release.
> 
> Any release is likely to be done over the web, on a `fee-free basis
> for noncommercial use' (that is, no $350 price tag).  However, the
> necessity for negotiations for commercial use will almost certainly
> remain.  There will probably be no CD or other artifact, to keep costs
> down and simplify publication of updates.  Please don't get too
> particular about licensing details now; it's far too early and out of
> our (CS Research's) hands, in any case.
> 
> -rob
> 
> 

[9fans] Oil on the water

[steve_kilbane]

On 22/09/98 22:28:53 rob wrote:

> The main obstacle to a release is pragmatic: the work of putting
> together a coherent package of hundreds of programs and the better
> part of a million lines of code is not something to be undertaken
> lightly.  There were several man-years of documentation work alone in
> the last distribution.  We don't relish going through all that again.
[shudder]

I wonder, would it be possible to have multiple levels of release?

Lucent would provide the first level of distribution, which would be for a
single, agreed-upon platform spec, with minimal documentation. This would
be somewhat similar to the ealy UNIX tapes.

The second level would be provided by Plan 9 users, rather than Lucent,
allowing the userbase to extend the basic distribution to something more
acceptable to today's persistence-challenged net: more docs, more drivers,
additional hardware platforms, better installation code, etc.

I'm taking a lot for granted from the readers of this list, of course. Just
thinking of ways in which the initial release process can be made less
demanding on the original developers.

steve

[9fans] Oil on the water

[G.David]

>And the other thought is that developers are not going to produce 
>software for Plan 9 if commercial licencing is impractically 
>expensive

It is!  Go ahead and call the number for commercial licenses at
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/distrib.html at the end of
the "To Order" section.  You will run into one Chuck Green and
he will tell you that Lucent is no longer interested in
licensing Plan 9.  If you really push hard, you will get some
absurd numbers (~thousand US$ per node) that have to paid each year!

And this is the old version 2 (Plan 9), not the shiny new
version 3 (Brazil).  For that one, I not even going to ask...

[Amoeba is looking better each day.]

David Butler
gdb@dbSystems.com

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Lucio]

According to rob@plan9.bell-labs.com :
> We are considering doing a new distribution of Plan 9, the system we
> have been calling Brazil ...

Yippee!!

Hm, $350 is a big chunk of money, despite the dropping US dollar, but 
I think it can be justified.

What I don't understand is why Linus Torvald can coordinate hundreds of 
developers, and Bell-Labs can't afford one or two staff members to do 
likewise (do you need an aged wanna-be hippy in such a position?  I 
could even do it from South Africa, more cheaply than having to 
relocate to New Jersey, and Lucent do have a presence here :-)

I'd love to see Bell-Labs follow Netscape's example (to a degree they 
have already done so long before Netscape or Linus Torvald thought of 
it), and similarly knock a chunk off Microsoft's market.  Any way we 
can twist your arm?  Even if somehow 9fans takes over the support 
function (personally, if necessary, rather than merely on a mailing 
list?)

The other thing that comes to mind, is the availability of Inferno for 
Plan 9 Release 3, I hate needing an NT box when I already have three 
healthy Plan 9 machines to work with.

Well, let's say I'd put a lot of effort into making such a thing 
happen, and I think it is unfortunate (but Bell-Labs' privilege) that 
Lucent deems it important to generate revenue from an experimental 
system at the expense of some (admittedly speculative) long-term 
benefits.

And the other thought is that developers are not going to produce 
software for Plan 9 if commercial licencing is impractically 
expensive, whereas even Bell-Labs may gain from having something like 
Star Office (bad example, maybe) made available to the entirety of 
Lucent (or Oracle 8, or Netscape Communicator and Commercial Server).

There's more, but I'm sure it has all been considered.  plan9.advocacy, 
anyone?  :-)

++L

[9fans] Oil on the water

[Digby]

>We are considering doing a new distribution of Plan 9, the system we
>have been calling Brazil ..

I understand that you can't promise anything, but just the fact
that it is being considered is extremely encouraging.

I thought the way original Plan 9 release was done was great - I certainly
didn't object to $350 for a source CD and printed manuals. But it would
certainly be even better if enough of the system were freely available on the
net for anyone to be able to do (non-commercial) application or driver
development.

I would still buy a CD and printed documentation for a new release
if they were available, although a pre-release on
the net would probably be a good idea in any case to sort out
initial bugs.

At least bringing the Plan 9 community up to date might save all
that effort spent back-porting Brazil drivers etc.

Has any consideraton been given to perhaps licensing the right to
print the documentation and a CD of the distribution to a
regular publisher? It would be nice if it could generate a
bit of revenue without creating extra work for the developers.

Anyway, thanks for the great news Rob. 

Regards,
DigbyT
-- 
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Oil on the water

[rob]

We are considering doing a new distribution of Plan 9, the system we
have been calling Brazil internally to distinguish it from the
released system.  It's not promised or even decided yet, but given the
recent discussions in 9fans it seems worthwhile to explain what we're
thinking about.

A release would focus on the PC version, but would probably include at
least the sources necessary to get another architecture going.  This
reduction in scope is partly because we have fewer variant machines
around these days and partly to shrink the size of the work and of the
distribution itself.

The main obstacle to a release is pragmatic: the work of putting
together a coherent package of hundreds of programs and the better
part of a million lines of code is not something to be undertaken
lightly.  There were several man-years of documentation work alone in
the last distribution.  We don't relish going through all that again.
Also, there are inevitable difficulties with distributing a bootable
OS that do not arise when distributing a single application.  As you
all well know, these were a major source of trouble with the last
distribution.

If we sent out the system as it stands now, the major benefit would
probably be a more up-to-date set of supported hardware.  We would
like to offer more.  We have a number of sweeping changes at all
levels of the system that we're discussing and, in some cases, already
working on.  If we defer those to distribute the system now, what we
ship will soon be obsolete and you will be only marginally better off
than you are now.  If we wait to get all those cool things done that
make a distribution worthwhile for all concerned, you'll have to wait
quite a while.  Discussions continue on how and when to proceed.
Meanwhile, the system improves.

We are aware of the complications caused by the overlap between Plan 9
(Brazil), a research system, and Inferno, a commercial product.  The
overlap is easy to characterize and we believe the issue can be
resolved.  The real barriers to release are, as mentioned, the work
involved and the questions of what and when to release.

Any release is likely to be done over the web, on a `fee-free basis
for noncommercial use' (that is, no $350 price tag).  However, the
necessity for negotiations for commercial use will almost certainly
remain.  There will probably be no CD or other artifact, to keep costs
down and simplify publication of updates.  Please don't get too
particular about licensing details now; it's far too early and out of
our (CS Research's) hands, in any case.

-rob