From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:18:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?QmVuY2UgRsOhYmnDoW4=?= To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cc01a9fe68c04ed95e2e3 Subject: Re: [9fans] Ideas from Plan-9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9ba21b02-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --089e013cc01a9fe68c04ed95e2e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 write 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 and >> 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-share. > 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 largely > 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 Windows & > Linux. The second was lack of support for a huge need - a fully functional > 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 best > ideas Plan-9 brings us can and should be a part of the future. I think 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 understand > 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 its > ideas to the mainstream through additions and improvements to existing > technology like Linux. > > Just some thoughts. > > Blake McBride > > > --089e013cc01a9fe68c04ed95e2e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If bringing Plan 9 to the masses will bring forth stuff li= ke 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. No= one will like Plan 9. Where you have to read manuals. They hate that. If yo= u like Plan 9, and there's a usecase for it, use it. And write device d= rivers. That is much more helpful than trying to convince LKML folks that t= hey 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:
..... =C2=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. =C2=A0Thanks to Russ Cox = for P9P!=C2=A0
....

This is a great segue into a point= I was hoping to make. =C2=A0I read Rob Pike's comments at:
<= br>

and it really got me thinking. =C2=A0What a great idea = he talked about! =C2=A0I think this may be at the heart of the Plan-9 idea.=

Mind-share and markets rarely move with sense or = logic. =C2=A0The better approach rarely wins. It is more a matter of critic= al mass of mind-share. =C2=A0Linux, for a lot of really good reasons, has t= hat mind-share (in the technical arena). =C2=A0(Of course Windows has much = more mind-share do largely to the fact that most users are non-technical an= d don't understand the difference - not to mention Microsoft's bull= ying of the market...) =C2=A0

I think Plan-9 suffered from two big issues. =C2=A0The = first was lack of mind-share (crowd acceptance). =C2=A0It is very hard to c= ompete with Windows & Linux. =C2=A0The second was lack of support for a= huge need - a fully functional browser.=C2=A0

In spite of some really great ideas, I think we'd a= ll agree that Plan-9 has no real future. =C2=A0On the other hand, I believe= that some of the best ideas Plan-9 brings us can and should be a part of t= he future. =C2=A0I think the best, most practical way to bring those ideas = to wide-spread use and availability is to implement those ideas in the Linu= x kernel. =C2=A0I understand that, since Linux is not Plan-9, there would b= e compromises and limitations, but it would be a huge step in the right dir= ection. =C2=A0Plan-9 proved those ideas in an ideal environment. =C2=A0Just= like what Smalltalk did to the world - creating C++, Java, the mouse, etc.= , Plan-9 can bring its ideas to the mainstream through additions and improv= ements to existing technology like Linux.

Just some thoughts.

Blake McBride



--089e013cc01a9fe68c04ed95e2e3--