On 6/7/06, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Corey wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:25, Rodolfo (kix) wrote:
>
>>God save us from QT and GTK ;)
>>
>
>
> Will god likewise save us from Rio and Acme?
In fact I use rio in Linux at my job. And by now I don't use Acme
because I have to deal with veryawfulcode (lots of very bad indentations
fruit of many tab/spaces/tab/spaces at code changes, functions more than
1500 lines long, an unworkable hierarchy of header files...). I agree
that acme is really pleasant for well-written code. As an example, I
like surfing plan9's with it. Also my code looks better if it's written
with acme, but this part is too subjective. :)
Let's wonder why there is plan9port but there is no gcc in plan9.
I think a part of the problem is the momentum that linux got, and
people have been fighting with the pains of migrating from windows
(those that try to use linux as a desktop OS). Many people got
frustrated with Linux and went to Mac OS X.
I don't see Plan 9 as a desktop OS for sure, but thanks to
virtualization technology (which certainly isn't new), I can run Plan
9 on my desktop in it's own VM and use the bits of Plan 9 that I want
or feel that I need. P9P also helps here.
I'm not sure if we've got any killer apps to bring people to Plan 9 though.
Mac OS X has the "Ooooh Shiny" effect on people.
Linux had uhm... Apache I guess that helped it get off the ground as a
viable alternative to expensive servers.
So the question is really, what does plan 9 do better that people
actually care about?
I usually don't have a good answer for this question. I'm not sure
saying "support gcc and all our problems are solved" is a good
approach though.
There's gotta be something we can do the Plan 9 way to WOW people
enough to give it a first or even second look.
As for me... I like operating systems, sometimes I wonder why, but I do.
