On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, at 10:30 PM, o...@eigenstate.org wrote: > > I really don't understand why Plan 9 has not been adopted. Legacy base? > > Porting software is expensive and time consuming. Unix > mostly works. On top of that, Unix has many features. > Bolted on in ways that don't fit, but features that > aren't provided by Plan 9 tools, nonetheless. > > When given a familiar but ugly environment with more > features, which requires less work to get their familiar > software running, what do you expect the result to be?
I agree, and add to all that the fact that Linux was popular and well-regarded many years before Plan 9 became open-source. Plan 9 was not only expensive, but IIRC hardly available before it was open-sourced in 2000. Also, denial of a serious bug in Fossil must have contributed to crushing what little chance Plan 9 had in this century. It took over 10 years to fix a serious data corruption bug which affected most, perhaps almost all new users. What commercial developer or balanced hobbyist would put up with that? For some perspective, see mycroftiv's mail: [9fans] notes on fossil, ANTS, and 9front/Bell labs controversies. He put a lot of effort into working around failure of the root filesystem. I'm sorry for the part I've played in contributing to the Plan 9 attitude problem, and I'm glad to see it has faded away. With the attitude problem gone and some corporations developing new, non-unix operating systems, I think Plan 9 could well become more popular than it's ever been. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T46e6d1465ae13031-M84bf4987dcdd85beea8fdbc6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
