[9fans] simple, sufficient

[rog@vitanuova.com]

> > sufficient for what?
>
> sufficient to do the job.   everything is a trade-off ...

there are many different jobs...

some might even require >4GB unit transfer sizes to accomplish
the job efficiently enough.

for another, maybe 9p2000's extra 8 byte overhead on a Tread compared
to old 9p might make a crucial difference.

"simple and sufficient" is a platitude: i don't think anyone really
wants to introduce complexity for its own sake, and what's the point
in implementing something if it's not sufficient for the task you want
to solve?

what i think we're really after is... simple and *insufficient*; :-)
choose the things you *won't* be able to do (e.g.  read >4GB in a
chunk, associate arbitrary metadata on a file) in order to gain
simplicity overall.

isn't this the reason for plan 9's beauty, and conversely perhaps, one
reason for its lack of popularity?

trade-offs (particularly trade-offs involving the sacrifice of some
potential feature in return for ill-defined simplicity) are hard.
many people are unwilling to make them; hence endlessly increasing
bloat.