[9fans] Plan 9 future (Was: Re: Are the Infernospaces gone?)

[G. David Butler gdb@dbSystems.com]

>Well, that's what worked in the past, so far from me to stir, but
>times have changed and the Open Source movement is acquiring quite
>a lot of legitimacy and respect.

True, especially since Sun has released Solaris source; but it is not
"open" in the same way as Linux.  Plan 9 is "open" too, but in a
different way.  There is nothing that keeps us from adding to the
system and sharing that code (we do it all the time).  And it is even
more "open" than Solaris because we can create derivative works that
change the API as necessary (e.g. my create(2) change.)  The real
problem with Plan 9 over Linux or Solaris has to do with what can
be done with the resulting system.  The license disallows commercial
use.

>
>Unless I'm much mistaken, I see two fundamental problems with
>releasing Brazil as a commercial product: (a) preparing the
>distribution into a shrink-wrap format and (b) providing the support
>that a paying public would be demanding.

That is an understatement!  Why would the paying public buy Plan 9?
This a question I would like to talk more about... maybe at the
BOF session?

>
>On the other hand, setting up a CVS repository and assigning one
>staff member to moderate source updates would, in my opinion, be
>considerably simpler and hopefully within a moderate budget.  In
>return, Bell Labs would get both feedback and improvements well in
>excess of their investment.  If one then gets something like
>StarOffice ported to the platform, the benefits become a lot more
>visible.

Again, without the ability to use the resulting system for more than
sending e-mail at home, why do it?  Why port StarOffice, or even
Microsoft Office (once they are split from the OS, heh heh), if
you can't sell it?

>
>I have little doubt that an Open Source Plan 9 would attract a lot
>of attention, even if released in a very scrappy form.

It is "open" now, and how much attention has it attracted?  Linux got
attention because the ~5,000 ISPs found it was an inexpensive way to
run their servers.  Can they use Plan 9 for that?  No.  In fact, while
I was CTO of an ISP (Internet America NASDAQ:GEEK) is when I got very
interested in Plan 9.  I found the distributed model a great way to
scale a large user base needing mail, news and web services.  I had
to scrap the project because Plan 9 could not be used in a commercial
setting.

>
>Interestingly, it's the shrink-wrapping of Linux that's given Red
>Hat the momentum to IPO, and it is not to be excluded that somebody
>like David Butler may be able to invest the effort to do likewise
>under a Plan 9 banner (David, I hope I am not insulting you :-).

Not at all.  I have been working for some time on Plan 9 and looking
for ways to legally use the system other than to impress my friends
and torture this list's members. :)

>
>The biggest hurdle, again strictly in my opinion, is the culture
>of dealing only with large corporates that AT&T seems to have always
>suffered from and no doubt Lucent has inherited.  Here it is hard
>for me to offer any suggestions on how to surmount it.

Absolutely! I have been working with AT&T/Lucent for many years to
get something other than the shrinkwrap license that gives us some
interesting tools but doesn't allow us to do more than play with them.


But enough complaining!  After 4 long years of negotiating with
Lucent I (as a representative of a corporation set up for this
purpose) have finally secured a redistribution license for the '95
and (if there is one) the upcoming release of Plan 9.  I cannot
discuss the financial details of the agreement (except to say it
was expensive).  But it makes it possible for end users worldwide
to get a sublicense to use Plan 9 commercially.

I have a few ideas of how to proceed with this new tool, but I'm
hoping to gather a bunch of feedback at USENIX.  Do you all think
one BOF session going to be enough?

David Butler
gdb@dbSystems.com