From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Sat,  6 Dec 2008 19:04:24 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <a8551790096b484dea436b0d5b2151b0@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <284C69AC-98F4-49A9-8857-C48D1E9A64AC@sun.com>
References: <15070.1228591717@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
	<284C69AC-98F4-49A9-8857-C48D1E9A64AC@sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c4419c8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> This one is easy: Plan 9 (and 9P in particular) doesn't have to have
> the redeeming quality of high adoption rate in order to justify
> an excessive engineering complexity. It is not complex at all.
> It is small and elegant. Whether that compactness and elegance
> sometimes prevents it from being considered "enterprise grade"
> is an open question (at least for me it is). The experience of
> Coraid suggests that it might actually be a nice tool even for those
> kinds of problems.

i believe the term of art is "enterpriseiness".

- erik