RE: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting

["Nigel Roles" <nigel@9fs.org>]

> 
> I think the effect is direct, not just by examples.
> If some specific function of your (high quality) software
> written for some (low quality) kernel counts on a kernel feature that
> works sometimes depending on special cases, sooner or later
> that ugliness will cause ugliness in the code that deals with it.
> I think forsyth's example says it exactly. You can't build any better
> than the foundation will allow.
> 
> 

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder.

Google have combined
a huge wobbly raft of Linux PCs and a search algorithm
into something which has the eyeballs of the world
choosing it in preference.

Are you telling me that Google would be demonstrably better
built on Plan 9? I can't see that, and nor would any of
their customers, because the kernel is hidden from view.

You can perhaps argue that there are alternatives to Linux
which might have lessened the amount of work they
needed to do to reach system administration nirvana, but
from what Rob says they have it solved pretty well.

Another example is MacOS X, built on BSD, the latter lampooned
by Linux acolytes for being no good for laptops. Apple solved
the problems, such that most people I know would buy Apple
as their next laptop.

If someone asks me which mobile phone to buy, I always say
Nokia. This is because, regardless of which kernel they use
(and they have changed several times), the MMI is generally
preferred.

You can claim that ugly kernels beget ugly code, and
I would agree. Claiming that ugly kernels beget ugly applications
is going too far. There are too many counterexamples.

Most users in the world don't see the code, and don't care
about it's uglyness. They care whether something works and is
easy to use.