Re: Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

Re: Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

[forsyth]

>>Perhaps someone in the Plan 9 world has implemented a `browser' for a
>>`web' document description language in Plan 9 style. There's no reason
>>why the Plan 9 form of innovation (step back, think, redesign and
>>rewrite) should not be applied to the Web, is there?

no, but i don't see wide-spread adoption as being particularly great,
so it's probably not worthwhile.  it's one reason that W3C and XML mania worries me.
a proper pandora's box.

Re: Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

[Steve Kilbane]

John wrote:
> There's no reason
> why the Plan 9 form of innovation (step back, think, redesign and
> rewrite) should not be applied to the Web, is there?

No reason at all, although it wouldn't solve the primary complaint
about the lack of a web browser, namely that one cannot read one's
favorite site, because the sites wouldn't be compatible.

steve

Re: Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

[John Murdie]

On 10 Oct, Steve Kilbane wrote:
>>  But
>> given Plan 9's complete environment it ought to be moderately easy
>> for a dedicated developer to produce the ultimate browser.
> 
> Plan 9 was an opportunity to redo from scratch, properly this time.
> The web, in contrast, builds kruft upon kruft at an horrendous rate.
> For a browser to be usable, it has to import all that kruft back in.
> While there's a sliding boundary for how much kruft is acceptable in
> order to communicate with non-Plan 9 systems, I think browsers crossed
> over that boundary years ago.
> 
> steve

Perhaps someone in the Plan 9 world has implemented a `browser' for a
`web' document description language in Plan 9 style. There's no reason
why the Plan 9 form of innovation (step back, think, redesign and
rewrite) should not be applied to the Web, is there?

Anyone?

-- 

John A. Murdie
Department of Computer Science
University of York
England

Re: Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

[Steve Kilbane]

>  But
> given Plan 9's complete environment it ought to be moderately easy
> for a dedicated developer to produce the ultimate browser.

Plan 9 was an opportunity to redo from scratch, properly this time.
The web, in contrast, builds kruft upon kruft at an horrendous rate.
For a browser to be usable, it has to import all that kruft back in.
While there's a sliding boundary for how much kruft is acceptable in
order to communicate with non-Plan 9 systems, I think browsers crossed
over that boundary years ago.

steve

Browsers (was: Re: Plan 9 annoyances (was: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp))

[Lucio De Re]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:57:21AM +0000, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> 
> But Plan 9 has been advertised as a superior alternative to the
> usual developer's interactive computing environment.  A good Web
> browser is another essential tool, these days.  Why should one
> be forced to buy a second computer to do something that ought to
> be right up the alley of the first one?

Because no-one has produced a browser that matches the quality of
the operating system it runs on (well, now that I re-read what I
wrote, of course Microsoft did, indeed).  But a web browser for
Plan 9 is a tall order and no-one has the resources to produce one.
Second best is Charon and if the threat from Rog is as I understand
it, Charon for Plan 9 is not that far away at least in some guise.

The other factor is Plan 9's origin.  Bell Labs (in the broadest
sense) are determined to do what they are good at and do it well.
I don't think it is an idle claim that Plan 9 is "a superior
alternative", although that is distinctly a value judgement.  But
given Plan 9's complete environment it ought to be moderately easy
for a dedicated developer to produce the ultimate browser.  It's
just Bell Labs that understandably do not feel obliged to do it
themselves.  Perhaps mothra showed up a weakness in their skill
set, or, more likely, warned of the price they'd have to pay to
succeed.

And then there's Java, isn't that a massive obstacle?  Should that
also be released as part of Plan 9 because it is "something that
ought to be right up the alley"?

On the other hand, I would be willing to pay Opera if they ported
their browser to Plan 9, even though it's been a while since I used
it.  I'm sorry they didn't appreciate Bell Labs' overtures and I
wonder what kind of misunderstanding might be behind it.  Of course,
there's also a philosophical shift involved, much as porting Mozilla
to Plan 9 would hardly be feasible without enormous (C++) efforts.

Which reminds me.  Was it dhog that threatened to release GCC 3.0
on us?

++L