Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[geoff@collyer.net]

One of the things I like about Plan 9 is that it requires almost no
system administration, so adding more `common applications' for system
administrators would seem to be just creating busy work.  Barring
problems with new hardware, after initial installation and set up of
the main file server (which is never likely to resemble installation
of any other system), here are the system administration activities
needed:

- (re)configure the mail system: edit /mail/lib/rewrite;

- add a new machine: add one entry to /lib/ndb/local or your local
equivalent, plug the machine into a switch, insert a boot floppy if
it's a PC, turn it on;

- add a new printer: add one line to /sys/lib/lp/devices and one entry
to /lib/ndb/local or your local equivalent, plug it in, turn it on;

- add a new user: type a newuser command on your file server console,
have the user login and run /sys/lib/newuser.

Perhaps I've forgotten something, but those are the main activities
and they're all pretty easy.  Setting up a console server (add a Perle
serial-port multiplexor, run some serial cables, and edit
/lib/ndb/consoledb) makes administration even easier.  There's no
sendmail, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.  There's
no BIND, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.  Without
those two, the main (l)unix security bugs are absent.

Familiar applications aren't going to get people intrigued about Plan
9, they're going to lull them into thinking that Plan 9 is Just
Another Unix.

I much prefer 8c & 8l to gcc & gld and /n/dump to CVS.  Providing gcc,
gld, CVS and the like would make developers think `what's so special
about this system?', rather than `gee, there are some different and
interesting ideas here'.

I don't think that the lack of interest by the world at large is due
to a lack of comfortable, familiar applications.  I think it's got
more to do with a lack of understanding of why Plan 9 is (*really!*)
interesting and a shortage of people who find that utterly compelling.
People have given various excuses in the past (lack of gcc or X11,
cost, licence terms) but if you're really enthused, none of that
matters.  Unix was a hit because it filled a niche, and what passes
for Unix these days is still filling that niche, and for a lot of
peple that's good enough.  Those of us who can't imagine going back to
living on what passes for Unix are a definite minority.

So what should be done?  I don't think we should measure success by
counting noses.  I'm not even sure that Plan 9 needs to be a
``success''.  We're using it, we like it and perhaps that's enough.
Keeping up with new hardware is a worthy goal.  We're all stretched a
bit thin; as far as I know, none of us are able to work on Plan 9
development full-time.  People have various pieces of work in
progress.  Perhaps after the election, the economy will pick up and
we'll all have more time to devote.

`Plan 9: a ``Failure'' for 17 years and still ``failing''.'