On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 15:26, Lucio De Re wrote: > I think Vester is mistaken to believe that Plan 9 as a product is > restricted to a distributed OS; its essence is, but its instances could > be as different as KenFS was from a CPU server (or an AUTH server, which > may be a more interesting example). It's a maintenance problem that gave > rise to Fossil (one product, not many), and it's the same maintenance > problem that's preventing Plan 9 to give birth to a better Netscape that > can operate without, say, storage management.
I understand the historical context. What you describe relates less to Plan 9’s intended scope and more to the unresolved challenges that have impeded its evolution. I am not here to argue, to offend, or to prove that I am right. I am simply offering a perspective. I post, I am present, and for me, that is enough. Should you be interested, I have published a brief article on X.com: https://x.com/VesterThacker/status/1932312592464368040 Titled “Plan 9 from Bell Labs: An Architectural Analysis of its Distributed Nature and Design Scale.” The article outlines my understanding of Plan 9. I have kept my response here deliberately concise. Wishing the best to all. - vic ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf84d656c78bbda91-M2d99f416098d4904fe37761c Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
