From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750) In-Reply-To: <4ef97ffa3f0bbb8004fb870726536e2c@collyer.net> References: <4ef97ffa3f0bbb8004fb870726536e2c@collyer.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Latchesar Ionkov Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:07:49 -0600 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5f4a1968-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 We have to choose between having clean system that is used by handful of people, or slightly dirtier one (but still better than Linux for example) that can attract more users. I don't think the Plan9 community has the resources (both in numbers and quality) to continue the development. We need fresh blood. Thanks, Lucho On Jun 7, 2006, at 6:53 PM, geoff@collyer.net wrote: > The argument `if you don't like it, don't use it', is how PL/I, C++, > gcc and Linux got to be huge. The fallacy in the argument is that > adding complexity and bulk to anything makes it harder to comprehend > and slower to use (not to mention less elegant). Manuals get thicker, > it's harder to find what you want and sometimes you have to learn > about things just to avoid them successfully. There get to be > unintended interactions between the parts. In software, layers (thus > slowness and bulk) tend to accrete. Then there are hacks (e.g., > shared libraries) to try to ameliorate the bloat. > > Is Linux really any better for having Gnome *and* KDE, both layered on > top of X libraries, and a raft of duelling applications written for > each? It reminds me of the Unix Window System Wars of the 1980's, > when people thought (or pretended to) that it *really mattered* if > your windows had drop shadows or 3D effects on the corners. >