Re: Warning: Rant. Please disregard. [Was: Re: [9fans] Is IBM

[W B Hacker <wbh@conducive.org>]

lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
>> More than that; hobbyists, however enlightened, cannot provide continuing
>> funding for Plan 9 development. Witness current hardware support. Plan 9 has
>> to grow or eventually die.
> 
> Well, we've been warned.
> 
> Given the alternative between diluting Plan 9 to suit the demand for
> snazz (who's going to deliver that, anyway?) and watching Plan 9
> become irrelevant to the marketplace, I'll pick the latter any time.
> 

That doesn't really seem to be the choice. There is a middle ground.

'Current' drivers for networking would seem to be critical path, audio-visual not.

> As for the real alternative, which is for Plan 9 to become more
> Linux-like which means more Windows-like, then what's the point?
> Linux is there, Windows is there, why have a third contender?  What
> innovation does Plan 9 contribute that the public is actually
> clamouring for?

Think PDA, phone handset, 'thin client' (terminal) and the heavy-hitters for 
storage and computation located somewhere else on the network.

Sure - the need is being filled with WinCE, Palm, Symbian, even stripped-down 
Linux already.

But if ever there was a market born to take best advantage of Plan9's long suit, 
handheld, or 'wearable' has to be the most obvious contender, and on power nd 
bandwidth consumption as much as CPU cycles or 'local' RAM capacity.

> 
> In fact, I'd hazard that Linux's only asset is its cost, in the eyes
> of the consumers.  Sadly, no other OS can beat that cost.  Actually,
> delete that "sadly".
> 
> ++L
> 
> 

The *BSD's beat Linux 'cost' quite handily - even if CD's for both are 
purchased, not downloaded.

Linux rapid and 'diffused' devel model and plethora of 'distros' creates a need 
for for more time invested in migrating, porting, upgrading, seeking answers - 
retraining, 'er 'keeping current'.

Grant, a *BSD might not be the best choice for playing music, videos, or games 
(save perhaps OS X).

But OS X *also* beats Linux' cost, hands-down - and even on 50% to 100% more 
costly hardware - unless one values time at a *negative* per-hour figure.

None of which is all that relevant to what Plan9 is best at.

Sharing networked resources per se?  Not that *alone*.

Scitek/IBM/MS NETBIOS & SMB 'net use' or Novell 'attach' were there years 
earlier than 'bind', get much the same end-results.

So too other Xerox-derived contemporaries (VINES, StreetTalk, etc.). Even MAP/TOP.

But most of those are not as clean or efficient, let alone 'orthogonal' as the 
Plan9 model.

Nor are their communications necessarily as robust. 'Early' Netware the 
exception, when it still generally had an essentially 'no-fail' and 
deterministic network physical layer, i.e. ARCNET, TCNS, 100-VG-AnyLAN.


On technical merit, Plan9 *should* be making inroads into the networked mobile 
market. And Alcatel-Lucent *are* players there.

But too many folks are willing to either consider Plan9 effectively dead or 
would like to keep it in a coma so as to 'feel righteous'. скопцы - like.

Was it 'Glenda' that Willie Nelson was singing about?

"...And sometimes it seems ... that she ain't worth the trouble at all
But she could be worth the world ...if somehow you could touch her at all.."


Bill