[9fans] Re: Future of Plan9

["Alexander C. Deztroyer" <alex-sci@freenet.co.nz>]

Indeed, the multiprocessor support of Plan 9 is great. I think it is
somewhat better than Linux. Because it's part of the original design of Plan
9, what about Linux? they just add it on afterwards. Anyway, there's no
point to compare these two OSes. You won't compare a gum with a rubber.
right?

But I reckon Plan 9 is too programmer-oriented. If someone is willing to
rewrite/organize the manuals it might be easier for beginners to use.
However, is there anyone who really wanna work for that? :-)

Alex
Randolph Fritz <randolph@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn93tfgk.1as.randolph@panix3.panix.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:49:14 GMT, Deztroyer-a1 <alex-sci@freenet.co.nz>
wrote:
> >One thing I can be sure is that plan 9 won't be as popular as linux. It
is
> >because the design on plan9; It is a distributed computing environment
> >rather than a client/server one. Be sure to check out the official web
site
> >of plan 9, you might found some more interesting stuff on there.
> >
> >Future of plan 9? In my opinion, with a little modification on Plan 9,
it'll
> >be great. However, plan 9 is just the same as concorde; not a very
succesful
> >commerical product I think. However, I enjoy using plan 9 myself. It's a
> >little bit too "scientific" if it is to server as a commerical product.
> >
>
> I think that Plan 9 is an ideal platform for ubiquitous computing; I
> could easily imagine a Plan 9 server as the core of a household
> network.  Inferno, based on similar technology, is working in telephone
> switches right now.
>
> It's also excellent for large, loosely-coupled multi-processor
> networks; when those are implemented using Linux, they invariably
> drown in excess (and costly) hardware.  One of these days (but
> probably not soon, sigh) I want to make serious use of it in lighting
> modelling.
>
> Randolph