From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:40:40 +0000 From: Will Rose cwr@crash.cts.com Subject: [9fans] My view of Plan 9 and it's future Topicbox-Message-UUID: af2782c6-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Message-ID: <20000517124040.b0WFl4fuFinQRxYOX1Zy6D5QqS-DjTM7gfjEGfO-Nhc@z> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote: : Jim Choate wrote: :> My view is that Lucent/Bell Labs has no intention of any sort of :> long term or serious support for Plan 9. ... : They seem to have been willing to fund its development over many : years now, with a lot of staff time redirected for a while toward : the Inferno product development. :> So long as Plan 9 is released under a commercial license and the :> primary goal is to make money off the OS, ... it will fail. : Plan 9 is a *research* platform, not a commercial product! : I was happy to pay my $350 for the previous snapshot of Plan 9, : including nice printed manuals, in order to do the "hobby" things : you claimed it was too pricy for. :> ... As users and supporters of Plan 9 our PRIMARY goal should be :> to increase the user community of Plan 9. : I disagree. What we want is quality, not quantity. I would obviously have liked Plan 9 to be cheaper, but I really can't see it as expensive; and I _don't_ think it should be Open Source. I value it because it contains a lot of interesting ideas from experienced system designers (and it's also fun to play with). I don't want it given over to a larger, less-skilled, group. I'll definitely take quality above quantity in this case; there are already enough 'quantity' OSes. OTOH, I really, really wish the PC version used the standard partition table in the conventional way... Will cwr@cts.com