From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:33:47 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] interesting potential targets for plan 9 and/or inferno In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <56a297000703151653k46561ad4s507a4d35959ab105@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 266a22cc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 3/15/07, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > I'm sorry we (I, in particular) lost the thread of this conversation, > as you point out. I think it should be made clear as soon as the > subject is raised that Plan 9 is not anywhere near ready for broad > acceptance, largely because it would entail straying very far from its > fundamentals, but also because the active community, meaning the > contributors, are much more likely to focus on Plan 9's unique > properties than on imitating Windows. > That sort of ignores the whole Java on Inferno fiasco. Unfortunately, people seem to want incremental change -- they want their old environments with perhaps a smattering of something new. I suppose in that way Inferno does really well since it runs in (and beside) old environments. Unfortunately, many of Plan9/Inferno's advantages can only be realized in a much more systematic way (plumber is far less useful with only a single app using it). However, I don't think that detracts from your overall point -- as I've said previously I think we are far better off focusing on developing Plan 9/Inferno's strengths rather than trying to make it look like something which already exists elsewhere. -eric