Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:34:47PM -0500, anothy@cosym.net wrote:
>
> Apache's a harder sell. do people want "Apache" or a web server with a
> certain feature set? if the later, one has a decision to make: port (and
> maybe improve) Apache, improve Plan 9's httpd, or build something
> new. there's a legitamate cost/gain analysis here; the fact that we didn't
> build Apache shouldn't enter into it.
>
I was using examples that came to mind immediately, not a short
wish list.  I have never used plan 9's httpd, but from the features
list it seems very good.  Certainly can't fault it from the client's
perspective.

A better point would have been made (but I was really trying not
to fan the flames) by suggesting that Mozilla be ported to Plan 9.

It's not the product, the developers, as much as the usefulness.
My point is that there is a developers' community out there and if
only they knew about acme and ?c, they might embrace them.  But
they need attracting, which can only be done with the familiar.
In my opinion, as a NetBSD user amongst Linux developers, what
caught the imagination there was Doom/(oops, can't remember the
name now).  From the large group of game aficionados (not to call
them addicts) grew a smaller community of contributors.

I have no difficulty concurring with everyone here that quality is
not high on these developer's agenda, but bulk cannot be avoided.
Amongst all the chaff, there are a few gems, of which Apache would
certainly be one.

So, to re-iterate my point, Plan 9 is the better platform, but should
not present itself from a position of arrogance, but rather endeavour
to provide a better platform for development (which is easy) with a
more familiar environment.

> i agree everyone could benefit by more active exchange between Plan 9
> and other systems. but i think it's a big leap to go from there to saying
> we should spend more time improving GCC or porting Apache.
> ?

It's a matter of perspective, I think.  My platform needs are closer
to SQL-oriented databases, volume processing, event-oriented diary
systems.  Some of this I can find in the public domain (postgreSQL
or mySQL would be options) while the rest (ERP stuff like SAP) is
unnecessarily complex and expensive, there isn't enough fat in my
client's profit margins to afford SAP or Great Plains, nor is there
enough money to invest in the doubtful expertise of an MCSE as
server administrator.

Plan 9 has all the right attribute as the platform of choice, is
just missing the applications.  And I have little doubt that
developing the applications would be easier and for the same
complexity one may get a much richer feature set.  But it takes a
large community of developers to produce (amongst the noise) good,
solid products.

And one of Plan 9's greatest assets is what my mind has latched on
as the "Bell Labs Giants".  I find it hard to appreciate all their
contributions, though, when their attitude is unnecessarily (not
"unjustifiably", I admit) disparaging.  And I see some churn on
this list as a result, the person I believe should be in there with
the Giants but has been sadly quiet for a long time is G David
Butler, I really thought he had already added good value to Plan
9 and was going to provide more.  There are others I should recall
but it's probably best that I can't who are brushed aside because
they don't quite tow the party line.  I guess that's what I find
hard to swallow.

Not that the party line isn't good, quite the contrary, but it also
benefits from occasional divergence, while using it as a soap box to
denigrate the opposition seems to me to be very short sighted.  Which
is heavy accusation to level at the Giants, but it appears to me to be
a truthful one.

++L