> Do you not think it's possible or worthwhile to have a great(er) desktop
> (or consumer-oriented embedded device) experience built atop Plan 9?

i'm not 100% sure what the op ment. but one way one could
read it is that plan 9 is for research, it doesn't need to be usable.
i don't think that was the point, and i wouldn't sign up for that
intpretation.

the way i would read that is that since we value clean ideas and
orthogonal design more than polish, you get a clean and malleable
os, but you don't get this for free. it's not that easy to port stuff
to plan 9, and it's hard to get folks interested in certain boil-the-
oceans projects like building a full html 5 web browser.

Let's say for argument's sake that errno pulls this off. Let's say he manages to get something like FireFox working on Plan 9. Let's say that the executable is fully functional (don't know if that's possible but let's assume it is). How does this change things literally, conceptually and philosophically? Consider this question across the board, for instance, can Plan 9 handle it (whatever that means)? How does it change Plan 9's future? What I'm getting at is that I'm hearing things about it being a research OS, so what would it mean for a research OS to have a full fledged browser available for it?