From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:43:13 -0600 Message-ID: From: Blake McBride To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f6ae5b412604ed9711d9 Subject: Re: [9fans] Ideas from Plan-9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9bd30154-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --089e0122f6ae5b412604ed9711d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay. Got it. On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Bence F=E1bi=E1n wrote= : > Bottomline is this: People would never use software like that. The ones > who do are already familiar with Plan 9 and weighted pros and cons years > ago. 99,9% of the potential users are already on this mailing list and > watched this exact same exchange a dozen times. > > > 2013/12/15 Blake McBride > >> I, respectfully, disagree. The end purpose of any OS, platform, or >> program is to perform some sort of function. That end function is calle= d >> an app. An app can be targeted at a programmer or a dumb user. The >> underlying environment (including tools) determines the available >> facilities a programmer has in order to construct said app. Unix brings >> far, far better facilities for the programmer than does Window for the >> construction and operation of an app. The new ideas embodied in Plan-9 >> bring considerable enhancements to such an environment. >> >> If I am not going to build an app of some sort or another, what is the >> value of Plan-9? Am I just going to spend all day playing with the cool >> ideas with no end or purpose in mind? >> >> Blake >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Bence F=E1bi=E1n wr= ote: >> >>> If bringing Plan 9 to the masses will bring forth stuff like C++ and >>> Java, I will fight against it till my dying breath. >>> >>> Jokes aside. People don't want to use computers. People want to use >>> apps. Noone will like Plan 9. Where you have to read manuals. They hate >>> that. If you like Plan 9, and there's a usecase for it, use it. And wri= te >>> device drivers. That is much more helpful than trying to convince LKML >>> folks that they need userlevel namespaces. People already tried this. >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/15 Blake McBride >>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:55 AM, trebol wrote: >>>> >>>>> ..... The lack of a >>>>> web browser capable of deal with today's madness and the portability >>>>> limitation of ape (at least for a ignorant like me) forcesme to deal >>>>> with other OS I have to install and maintaining, so the simplicity an= d >>>>> cleanness I like so much of plan9 become useless. Thanks to Russ Cox >>>>> for P9P! >>>> >>>> .... >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is a great segue into a point I was hoping to make. I read Rob >>>> Pike's comments at: >>>> >>>> http://rob.pike.usesthis.com/ >>>> >>>> and it really got me thinking. What a great idea he talked about! I >>>> think this may be at the heart of the Plan-9 idea. >>>> >>>> Mind-share and markets rarely move with sense or logic. The better >>>> approach rarely wins. It is more a matter of critical mass of mind-sha= re. >>>> Linux, for a lot of really good reasons, has that mind-share (in the >>>> technical arena). (Of course Windows has much more mind-share do larg= ely >>>> to the fact that most users are non-technical and don't understand the >>>> difference - not to mention Microsoft's bullying of the market...) >>>> >>>> I think Plan-9 suffered from two big issues. The first was lack of >>>> mind-share (crowd acceptance). It is very hard to compete with Window= s & >>>> Linux. The second was lack of support for a huge need - a fully funct= ional >>>> browser. >>>> >>>> In spite of some really great ideas, I think we'd all agree that Plan-= 9 >>>> has no real future. On the other hand, I believe that some of the bes= t >>>> ideas Plan-9 brings us can and should be a part of the future. I thin= k the >>>> best, most practical way to bring those ideas to wide-spread use and >>>> availability is to implement those ideas in the Linux kernel. I under= stand >>>> that, since Linux is not Plan-9, there would be compromises and >>>> limitations, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plan= -9 >>>> proved those ideas in an ideal environment. Just like what Smalltalk = did >>>> to the world - creating C++, Java, the mouse, etc., Plan-9 can bring i= ts >>>> ideas to the mainstream through additions and improvements to existing >>>> technology like Linux. >>>> >>>> Just some thoughts. >>>> >>>> Blake McBride >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --089e0122f6ae5b412604ed9711d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay. =A0Got it.


<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Bence F=E1bi=E1= n <begnoc@gmail.com> wrote:
Bottomline is this: People = would never use software like that. The ones who do are already familiar wi= th Plan 9 and weighted pros and cons years ago. 99,9% of the potential user= s are already on this mailing list and watched this exact same exchange a d= ozen times.

2013/12/15 Blake McBride <blake@mcbride.= name>
I, respectfully, disagree. =A0The end purpose of any OS, p= latform, or program is to perform some sort of function. =A0That end functi= on is called an app. =A0An app can be targeted at a programmer or a dumb us= er. The underlying environment (including tools) determines the available f= acilities a programmer has in order to construct said app. =A0Unix brings f= ar, far better facilities for the programmer than does Window for the const= ruction and operation of an app. =A0The new ideas embodied in Plan-9 bring = considerable enhancements to such an environment.

If I am not going to build an app of some sort or another, w= hat is the value of Plan-9? =A0Am I just going to spend all day playing wit= h the cool ideas with no end or purpose in mind? =A0

Blake



On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM= , Bence F=E1bi=E1n <begnoc@gmail.com> wrote:
If bringing Plan 9 to the m= asses will bring forth stuff like C++ and Java, I will fight against it til= l my dying breath.

Jokes aside. People don't want to use computers. People want to use= apps. Noone will like Plan 9. Where you have to read manuals. They hate th= at. If you like Plan 9, and there's a usecase for it, use it. And write= device drivers. That is much more helpful than trying to convince LKML fol= ks that they need userlevel namespaces. People already tried this.


2013/12/15 Blake McBride <blake@mcbride.name>
On S= un, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:55 AM, trebol <trebol55555@aol.com> = wrote:
..... =A0The lack of a
web browser capable of deal with today's madness and the portability limitation of ape (at least for a ignorant like me) forcesme to deal
with other OS I have to install and maintaining, so the simplicity and
cleanness I like so much of plan9 become useless. =A0Thanks to Russ Cox for= P9P!=A0
....

This is a great segue into a point= I was hoping to make. =A0I read Rob Pike's comments at:

=

and it really got me thinking. =A0What a great idea he = talked about! =A0I think this may be at the heart of the Plan-9 idea.
=

Mind-share and markets rarely move with sense or logic.= =A0The better approach rarely wins. It is more a matter of critical mass o= f mind-share. =A0Linux, for a lot of really good reasons, has that mind-sha= re (in the technical arena). =A0(Of course Windows has much more mind-share= do largely to the fact that most users are non-technical and don't und= erstand the difference - not to mention Microsoft's bullying of the mar= ket...) =A0

I think Plan-9 suffered from two big issues. =A0The fir= st was lack of mind-share (crowd acceptance). =A0It is very hard to compete= with Windows & Linux. =A0The second was lack of support for a huge nee= d - a fully functional browser.=A0

In spite of some really great ideas, I think we'd a= ll agree that Plan-9 has no real future. =A0On the other hand, I believe th= at some of the best ideas Plan-9 brings us can and should be a part of the = future. =A0I think the best, most practical way to bring those ideas to wid= e-spread use and availability is to implement those ideas in the Linux kern= el. =A0I understand that, since Linux is not Plan-9, there would be comprom= ises and limitations, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. = =A0Plan-9 proved those ideas in an ideal environment. =A0Just like what Sma= lltalk did to the world - creating C++, Java, the mouse, etc., Plan-9 can b= ring its ideas to the mainstream through additions and improvements to exis= ting technology like Linux.

Just some thoughts.
=

Blake McBride






--089e0122f6ae5b412604ed9711d9--