From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat,  6 May 2000 09:04:22 +0200
From: Lucio De Re lucio@proxima.alt.za
Subject: [9fans] Plan 9 future (Was: Re: Are the Infernospaces gone?)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a74b7440-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <20000506070422.IAH_lQE4gG_RQOBn8WVCw69JH-8flNv7kkRZW1VqOnk@z>

On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 10:00:56PM +0000, G. David Butler wrote:
>
I originally said:

> >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.
>
Agreed, even though you and I have differing views on the usefulness
of commercial use: Linux took off long before it found a commercial
purpose, although you may be correct that much of its impetus comes
from (more recent) commercial use.

As for code-sharing, it is restricted to the elite that acquired
the licence in the first place (does Tom Duff have a licenced copy,
or an exemption? :-) :-)

I think the price of Plan 9 is the primary stumbling block, Linux
caught on because it was free, not just open.  OpenDOS isn't making
much progress either, despite its Open-ness.  On the other hand,
the *BSDs are an interesting issue: they have followers, no doubt
more than Plan 9, but nothing like Linux.  Something to do with
available toys, early in the game, and easy acceptance of all
contributions, a lesson that's hard for purists to accept; Plan 9
may well suffer from such fate once it is opened up.

In summary, (a) a free Plan 9 would have created a much greater
momentum (I might have mentioned this before, I discovered Plan 9
from the RC shell that Linux came out with originally), (b)
applications, specially flashy ones, are what trigger interest,
novelty and ease of development are much lower in the ladder (has
anyone ported GCC - shudder - to Plan 9?); (c) it must be possible,
nay, easy, to contribute to the code base, as many in this forum
have demonstrated, nothing like public recognition to encourage
more contributions.  Am I repeating the lesson in Eric Raymond's
"The cathedral and the Bazaar?"

> >
> >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?
>
I'd love to be there, but that's right out of my league.  By all
means let's thrash it out here (I'd better do something about my
e-mail first, the present arrangement is driving me nuts :-).
Personally, I'd like to see a BSD-style licence, even with Lucent
getting a cut.  Or GDB, for that matter.  I guess we should discuss
that option too.

> >
> >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?
>
That's where we see things differently, but I think it is merely
a matter of expression.  Yourself have added features to Plan 9
with only your personal comfort in mind.  Had I access to StarOffice
sources, I may well consider porting it to a platform I am pleased
with and use daily.  Keep in mind that I am still striving to have
a single screen and keyboard on my desk, and that I find multibooting
totally unfeasible, probably because the Plan 9 philosophy has
gotten to me, right under my skin.  Don't underestimate the religious
value _that_ may have.

I do hear your concern with commercial viability, though.  But I
couldn't sell StarOffice, although I could provide installation
services, support and consulting to make a living.  What I need is
to be able to justify installing my client's applications under
Plan 9/Brazil/Inferno, and do so legally, then I can charge for my
further contributions.

> >
> >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.
>
Again, we'll just have to disagree here, probably for want of hard
data.  My view is that the ISPs moved to Linux because of price,
first, and momentum, second.  I accept that deploying Plan 9 is
out of the question, but commercial use of Linux only occurred
because of the personal computing community that had already taken
shape.  I had NetBSD at the ISP I started (PiX, in Johannesburg)
replaced with Linux because the new technical manager was more
comfortable with it.  Admittedly, if Linux could not be seen as a
contender for commercial use, it would have had less impact (the
Plan 9-effect, shall we call it?) but I think you exaggerate its
importance, no matter how solid a block it is.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with you that commercial use is
a necessity, I just hope it does not cloud the issue to the point
where _only_ commercial use is viable.

> >
> >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. :)
>
Well, you made at least one friend or convert - does that make me
a sado-masochist?

> 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 guess I may as well ask here:  Do you need a very enthusiastic
software engineer with lots of experience (read "old") and some
rather old-fashioned views?

> 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?
>
... and if not, I'll gladly provide my services remotely, at South
African rates.

> David Butler
> gdb@dbSystems.com

Good luck, glad to see that there's still a bit of cloak-and-daggering
going on, and it works!

++L