From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180906003258.9A428156E400@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <20180906003258.9A428156E400@mail.bitblocks.com> From: Lucio De Re Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 05:40:06 +0200 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e169b2a2-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/6/18, Bakul Shah wrote: > > But if all you want to do is just run plan9 why even bother? > But that is disingenuous, isn't it? What one wants is Plan 9 as a model for what may be a family of hardware APIs. It makes sense to promote massive parallelism, but the API to it should be sufficiently simple for a single individual to manage. Most computing devices today are single-user, even those like my new Android phone that offer shared user capabilities. Incidentally, the authorisation model in this case is inadequate for my purpose (share with a pre-teen). So we have layers and we need the complexity to be shoved into well-tested, sealed boxes that can be trusted, while the surface remains as simple as 9P. Any other model, I would prophesise, will reduce to DNA, with luggage such a model is condemned to carry. Lucio.