On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 09:07:07AM -0700, errno wrote: > > But you're stuck, aren't you? As soon as, say, a browser is developed for > > Plan 9 (assuming that someone could afford the resources), the standards > > will change and the browser will need major surgery. Who's going to > > invest in that? Basically, the mover and shakers are precisely the > > people who don't want Plan 9 (or anything like it) to be a success story. > > They are winning. > > I concur, and I think this is a generally sound summary of the situation. And > highly astute, with regards to your comment concerning certain movers and > shakers. Plan 9 has mind-numbing potential of being a bonafide "disruptive > technology", if the cat ever got outta the bag. I'm convinced that the web is > the key. > Thank you for the complement and, for that matter, giving me the opportunity to think that possibility through in the first place. Not that I think it's a conspiracy theory thing, as much as the "movers and shakers" know what they want and make sure that the public looks nowhere else. I long ago decided that Microsoft Windows was a religious institution, if not a religion and I think more players (Steve Jobs and my friend Mark Shuttleworth, plus a few hardware suppliers) have also, intentionally or unwittingly, gotten into the game.
> html + css + javascript over http through ssl is able to adequately satisfy > ~80% of the general public's computing needs and wants. (I pulled that > "80%" figure out of my ass, but I doubt I'm all too far from the mark) > > So, what to do? > Look outside the box? Preach a different Gospel? Wait for the Chinese to provide a new perspective? More than anything else, we need to eradicate the belief that a single device needs to be the tool of choice for all possible uses. We use mobile phones as cameras, computers as hi-fi systems, heaven only knows how soon we'll be using the microwave oven doors as visual panels to monitor the house heating arrangements. > The Web: > > Reject it? (aka "go buy a tablet" ) > I would think that a hardware device like the tablets (has anybody conclusively established why something MS could not successfully market has found such a ready audience when supplied by Apple? Is it the UI as one might conclude from an earlier post?). > Reproduce it? (aka "have you looked at webfs?" ) > I think the web is overrated, and that it requires the type of re-analysis that Plan 9 would force upon it: treat it as a Unix directory hierarchy (in other words, redesign HTTP as a 9P "application"), separate HTML rendering from the transport and the Hypertext character of the documents (they are orthogonal and accidentally, incorrectly, tightly coupled), use ASN.1 rather than XML as the data representation and scrap the inanity of CSS or at minimum come up with a useful standard that does not include the (fake) ability of users to edit it as text (this results in damage instead of repairs). > Reuse it? (aka "port webkit") > No, it is broken beyond repair, it will infect Plan 9. > > There's no possible way that I'm the only one who has envisioned > some rendition of the following science-fiction: > > * a Plan 9-based platform targeted at the general consumer market > Build a hardware device, make it just a web renderer. Build it in huge quantities and make sure everyone has one: in each car seat, in aeroplanes, in the microwave door, in the outside door to the house, in the garage door, at each bus stop, at traffic lights, you name it... Freeze the standard or slow down its cancerous growth to a practical, human manageable speed. > * this platform offers html + css + javascript (aka "the web") as the > primary front-end ui > And a keyboard or better. I need some time to address the rest of your posting. ++L
