From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] capability-based design (Re: permissions idea)
From: nigel@9fs.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-vfwrimsfaddulhvxlwqtwrsphv"
Message-Id: <20011005081358.C0554199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Fri,  5 Oct 2001 09:13:57 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fe086eea-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-vfwrimsfaddulhvxlwqtwrsphv
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> the success rate compared with
>> proprietary OSes is rather good.  note that almost all proprietary
>> OSes have educated and experienced designers and implementors.
>>
I've a feeling that for every GPL'ed OS you can name which is successful,
I can name several non-GPL'ed ones. In fact, I can only think of one
successful GPLed OS...


--upas-vfwrimsfaddulhvxlwqtwrsphv
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by cpu; Fri Oct  5 08:48:06 BST 2001
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.6.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 065E6199D5; Fri,  5 Oct 2001 03:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from proxy2.ba.best.com (proxy2.ba.best.com [206.184.139.14])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 5574A199B5
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri,  5 Oct 2001 03:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (mail@sdn-ar-001casfraP241.dialsprint.net [168.191.203.3])
	by proxy2.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id AAA18610
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hs by localhost with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
	id 15pPbB-0002yN-00; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:40:45 -0700
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] capability-based design (Re: permissions idea)
In-Reply-To: <20011005053113.DF809199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu>
References: <20011005053113.DF809199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu>
From: Richard <greon@best.com>
Message-Id: <E15pPbB-0002yN-00@localhost>
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:40:45 -0700

nigel@9fs.org writes:

>>> also, EROS's GPLed.  I do not say that is an improvement, but 
>>> a GPLed OS has done very well lately in popularity.
>
>This is a bit self-fulfilling isn't it? How many GPL'ed OSes are there
>thay haven't become popular? We don't know, because they haven't
>become popular enough to get publicised.

there are many GPLed OSes, but most are written by teenagers or young
men with little education or experience.  among GPLed OSes with
competent designers and implementors, the success rate compared with
proprietary OSes is rather good.  note that almost all proprietary
OSes have educated and experienced designers and implementors.

I am thinking also about the abandonment of AmigaOS, OS/2 and (probably)
BeOS.  it must be frustrating to have written software for one of those
once-popular platforms only to see the owner of the platform let it die.
I speculate that proprietary OSes need to attract 10s of millions of
users or their owners let them die, but that open source OSes can
survive for decades with much fewer users.

the "fitness landscape" for OSes is quite harsh and severe because
of numerous "network effects".  "network effect" is a term from
economics that every computerist should understand.
--upas-vfwrimsfaddulhvxlwqtwrsphv--