From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A61E5CE.7080809@tecmav.com>
References: <4A61E5CE.7080809@tecmav.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:35:18 +0100
Message-ID: <70328bb00907181135j6e7a1c1dvdc66e346b28409a3@mail.gmail.com>
From: dorin bumbu <bumbudorin@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Question about Plan9 project
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25ea0d3c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

There are thousands of devices shipped with Microsoft Windows CE prior
to version 4 (.NET). For these devices MS never offered patches even
if these versions had lots of bugs, nor even standard C libraries
(thank God there is wcecompat). And there are lot of projects that
reached 10+ years (with workarounds, of course), and still in
production. I don't think the risk of using Plan 9 is greather than
the risk assumend by those who developed with WCE prior to 4.

Dorin

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Adriano Verardo<a.verardo@tecmav.com> wrot=
e:
> Hi all,
>
> As a professional user I think that Plan9 could be better than *nix for a
> large class of =A0industrial - not time critical - applications but in It=
aly
> nobody
> use it, except of no more than a dozen of fans. The University doesn't kn=
ow
> it at all.
> Of course, this is what I see. I would be happy if the picture were
> different.
>
> Speaking with my clients I see that almost all appreciate Plan9. But, eve=
n
> if some
> of them defined it "fascinating", the common sense is that, without
> guarantees about
> its longevity, it could be a wrong choice.
>
> How can I reply to this objection ?
>
> Reading the thread about plan9.bell-lab.com I understand that Bell Labs
> are no more directly committed in the project. Is it correct ?
>
> Adriano
>
>