On 05/14/2012 05:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:32:35PM +0200, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
>>
>> On May 14, 2012, at 12:14 PM, IainWS wrote:
>>
>>> Would
>>> I be wrong in saying there are four dictators?
>>
>> Yes, there's just good taste :)
>>
>
> Since the OS was designed ; is simple ; is consistant, not a lot of
> people can claim to "improve it" by moving commas, adding trivialities,
> finding in a very lengthy perimeter of an obese system an unseen detail
> to focuse on.
>
> A significant change would mean a significant work. And there are not a
> lot of people in the "open" (community) able or ready to work
> significantly.
>
> Hence, Plan9 is in part, by design, insulated from entropy.
Plan 9 has never approached Unix in popularity, and has been primarily a
research tool:
Plan 9 failed simply because it fell short of being a
compelling enough improvement on Unix to displace its ancestor.
Compared to Plan 9, Unix creaks and clanks and has obvious rust
spots, but it gets the job done well enough to hold its
position. There is a lesson here for ambitious system
architects: the most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an
existing codebase that is just good enough. — Eric S. Raymond[3]
Other criticisms focused on the lack of commercial backup, the low
number of end-user applications, and the lack of device drivers.[26][27]
See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs> for the
references.
--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)
