Re: [9fans] Ideas from Plan-9

["Bence Fábián" <begnoc@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4078 bytes --]

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 <blake@mcbride.name>

> I, respectfully, disagree.  The end purpose of any OS, platform, or
> program is to perform some sort of function.  That end function is called
> 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 Fábián <begnoc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <blake@mcbride.name>
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:55 AM, trebol <trebol55555@aol.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5824 bytes --]