From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:57:29 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <24031d67ad3f8cc1e953f86b510bf447@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <u1e789xon5.ln2@news.homelinux.net>
References: <3a863214-b236-4195-8eb3-acecae0380db@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>
	<FBF929E7-CB37-40B4-9048-0BAFE19E64FA@lsub.org>
	<20120514113016.GA2715@polynum.com>
	<u1e789xon5.ln2@news.homelinux.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Governance question???
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8ba45310-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Plan 9 has never approached Unix in popularity, and has been primarily =
a
> research tool:
>=20
> 	Plan 9 failed simply because it fell short of being a
> 	compelling enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor.
> 	Compared to Plan 9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust
> 	spots, but it gets the job done well enough to hold its
> 	position. There is a lesson here for ambitious system
> 	architects: the most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an
> 	existing codebase that is just good enough. =E2=80=94 Eric S. Raymond[=
3]

the implicit definition of success here=E2=80=94popularity=E2=80=94is one=
 i would
reject.  popularity has nothing to do with fitness for a purpose.

- erik