Not true. The ability to adapt the system quickly in response to a
changing standards situation made a critical difference in having
UTF-8 rather than a weaker proposal accepted by X/Open and hence ISO.
Plan 9's "historical" role is not in question. That same book I quoted in
my original post says that the /proc filesystem in FreeBSD is modelled
after Plan 9's totally generic approach to representing a running system
and its resources. Fine, but not "on-topic." There're many research
platforms--some we've heard of, some we've not--whose innovations are
"backported" into production systems but that doesn't make those platforms
useful to the general user.
Plan 9 is not for end users. Plan 9 is for programmers.
Which types of programmers?
1. Casual programmers, e.g. an admin who finds out a few lines of code
could lighten their burden
2. Programmers in need of a dirty-but-quick solution, e.g. a prototype
3. Hobby programmers, i.e. those who learn out of curiosity and aren't
"forced" to remain loyal to a specific system's quirks and general edginess
4. Reluctant programmers, i.e. those who aren't programmers per se but need
to write one program in the course of solving another--probably
non-computerish--problem
5. Ueberprogrammers, e.g. those who write one new OS in each circadian cycle
6. Plain vanilla programmers, i.e. people whose "job" revolves around
programming computers most of whom have to develop codebases of their
predecessors and are stuck with whatever the original designers thought was
best be it a Plan 9 "mod" or whatever
7. Abstract computer science programmers, i.e. those who want to test and
profile right here right now that brand new hybrid of stack, trie, and
tuatara they've thought up
If Plan 9 is really an OS only for people of types (5) and (6), and some of
(2), well then my statement is true that "Plan 9 is a 'niche' OS." No one
should wonder why it isn't more widely used or even remembered in less
"elite" circles.
Best wishes,
Eris Discordia
--On Monday, June 30, 2008 3:48 PM -0700 Rob Pike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The fact the UTF-8 was first "implemented" on Plan 9 has nothing
to do with Plan 9's funtionality as an OS.
Not true. The ability to adapt the system quickly in response to a
changing standards situation made a critical difference in having
UTF-8 rather than a weaker proposal accepted by X/Open and hence ISO.
The question is what new function Plan 9, as an OS, defines for
the end user.
Plan 9 is not for end users. Plan 9 is for programmers.
-rob
