[9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[andrey mirtchovski]

after all these years:

http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Jacob Todd]

it's good to know where we went wrong.

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, andrey mirtchovski
<mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> after all these years:
>
> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Rob Pike]

He appears not to understand the concept of "research".

-rob


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jacob Todd <jaketodd422@gmail.com> wrote:
> it's good to know where we went wrong.
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, andrey mirtchovski
> <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> after all these years:
>>
>> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>>
>

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[dexen deVries]

On Sunday 29 of September 2013 10:39:40 Rob Pike wrote:
> He appears not to understand the concept of "research".


and he fails to note that every single thing he mentions has already made its 
way into commercial OSes (at least RedHat has 100% of it; MacOS X has some).

even the /net is widespread in a bastardized form thanks to the 
`/dev/tcp/$IP/$PORT' hack in bash.

-- 
dexen deVries

[[[↓][→]]]

I have seen the Great Pretender and he is not what he seems.

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Kurt H Maier]

Quoting Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com>:

> He appears not to understand the concept of "research".
>
> -rob
>

Or, more to the point, "success."

khm

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 198 bytes --]

On 29 September 2013 17:55, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchovski@gmail.com>wrote:

> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html


I note that despite that analysis he worked on Bing.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 576 bytes --]

[9fans] Re: i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Teodoro Santoni]

Surely there was a market to fit into...

On domenica 29 settembre 2013 22:34:34 CEST, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> On 29 September 2013 17:55, andrey mirtchovski 
> <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>
> I note that despite that analysis he worked on Bing.

[9fans] Re: i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Teodoro Santoni]

Oh geez, I'm some guy passing by but I hope that this motivational speech about making things for the cashflow reaches the whole Microsoft, 'cause the Microsophiles totally missed the point with their work, it seems. I can ignore his thoughts about Bell Labs being some kind of R&D department strict on budget of some casual telco, or his focus on "having impressions on the sw! Get the cash! Go social an' advertise!". Don't know about you

On domenica 29 settembre 2013 18:55:20 CEST, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> after all these years:
>
> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>
>
>

[9fans] Re: i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Teodoro Santoni]

However stating that "just works" equals "don't rework it" is very Microsofty, tho'

On domenica 29 settembre 2013 18:55:20 CEST, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> after all these years:
>
> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Matthew Veety]

World Domination. You forget that 2013 is the year of the Plan 9 desktop.

On Sep 29, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Teodoro Santoni <asbrasbra@gmail.com> wrote:

> Surely there was a market to fit into...
> 
> On domenica 29 settembre 2013 22:34:34 CEST, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>> 
>> On 29 September 2013 17:55, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>> 
>> I note that despite that analysis he worked on Bing.
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Brantley Coile]

"Doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right". -- Harry Houdini. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 29, 2013, at 8:02 PM, "Teodoro Santoni" <asbrasbra@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> However stating that "just works" equals "don't rework it" is very Microsofty, tho'
> 
>> On domenica 29 settembre 2013 18:55:20 CEST, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
>> after all these years:
>> 
>> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Devon H. O'Dell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

I really, really wish you had misspelled his name.


2013/9/29 Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>

> "Doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name
> right". -- Harry Houdini.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 29, 2013, at 8:02 PM, "Teodoro Santoni" <asbrasbra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > However stating that "just works" equals "don't rework it" is very
> Microsofty, tho'
> >
> >> On domenica 29 settembre 2013 18:55:20 CEST, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> >> after all these years:
> >>
> >> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1247 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Sep 29 23:00:29 EDT 2013, asbrasbra@gmail.com wrote:
> However stating that "just works" equals "don't rework it" is very Microsofty, tho'

also debatable wrt sockets.  in 1992, it was not possible with sockets to
add an address family without changing all the user programs that intended
to use it.  calling that "it just works" may be a stretch.  part of the reason
one still sees line items that say "works with ip6".

- erik

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Jonathan Cast]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013, at 06:12 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sun Sep 29 23:00:29 EDT 2013, asbrasbra@gmail.com wrote:
> > However stating that "just works" equals "don't rework it" is very Microsofty, tho'
>
> also debatable wrt sockets.  in 1992, it was not possible with sockets to
> add an address family without changing all the user programs that
> intended
> to use it.  calling that "it just works" may be a stretch.

"[J]ust" in the since of "just barely" not in the sense of "simply" . .
.

> part of the
> reason
> one still sees line items that say "works with ip6".

--
  Jonathan Cast
  jonathanccast@fastmail.fm

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 309 bytes --]

On 30 September 2013 14:12, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

> in 1992, it was not possible with sockets to
> add an address family without changing all the user programs that intended
> to use it.
>

also, it overlooks the possibility of import/export once anything is in a
name space

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 644 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong

[Gabriel Diaz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]

still is a pity that all that great work is not more widely used.

gabi



________________________________
 De: Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com>
Para: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Enviado: Domingo 29 de septiembre de 2013 19:39
Asunto: Re: [9fans] i'm afraid we've had it wrong


He appears not to understand the concept of "research".

-rob



On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Jacob Todd <jaketodd422@gmail.com> wrote:
> it's good to know where we went wrong.
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, andrey mirtchovski
> <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> after all these years:
>>
>> http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/the_plan-9_effect.html
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2341 bytes --]