Two caveats:<br><br>1. I am not an expert in this area.<br>2. You&#39;re all probably sick of hearing these old arguments and should put me in your kill file if my ignorance offends.<br><br>I&#39;ve observed that real, consistent progress is largely made by paid developers, not hobbyists. This is true even in open source projects. The linux kernel, X windows, mozillla, and open office all have large, paid development teams that do the bulk of the work. There are the occasional hobbyist contributers that can provide real assistance, but the bulk is done by paid developers. This is also true of plan 9, I believe.
<br><br>In order to pay developers to develop, the paying organization has to see some compelling benefit from the end result. For linux, mozilla, X and open office, there are number of commercial entities that derive cost savings or profit based on development of that software. Except mozilla. I&#39;m not sure why that&#39;s being funded. :)
<br><br>Eventually, if Plan 9 can&#39;t demonstrate a unique business benefit. I.E. someone can save significant money or make significant money by doing something, <span style="font-style: italic;">but only if they use Plan 9
</span>, the paid developers will be sent to other projects. That&#39;s the end of plan 9 for all practical purposes, if the history of similar projects is any indication. Some day, even the most die hard enthusiast will have to replace their creaky old computers with new ones that have no driver support in plan 9.
<br><br>I look forward to a heaping helping of scorn from young people on the list who are insulated from commercial considerations :)<br><br><br><br><br>