[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than that; hobbyists, however enlightened, cannot provide continuing
funding for Plan 9 development. Witness current hardware support. Plan 9 has
to grow or eventually die.
Well, we've been warned.
Given the alternative between diluting Plan 9 to suit the demand for
snazz (who's going to deliver that, anyway?) and watching Plan 9
become irrelevant to the marketplace, I'll pick the latter any time.
That doesn't really seem to be the choice. There is a middle ground.
'Current' drivers for networking would seem to be critical path, audio-visual
not.
As for the real alternative, which is for Plan 9 to become more
Linux-like which means more Windows-like, then what's the point?
Linux is there, Windows is there, why have a third contender? What
innovation does Plan 9 contribute that the public is actually
clamouring for?
Think PDA, phone handset, 'thin client' (terminal) and the heavy-hitters for
storage and computation located somewhere else on the network.
Sure - the need is being filled with WinCE, Palm, Symbian, even stripped-down
Linux already.
But if ever there was a market born to take best advantage of Plan9's long suit,
handheld, or 'wearable' has to be the most obvious contender, and on power nd
bandwidth consumption as much as CPU cycles or 'local' RAM capacity.
In fact, I'd hazard that Linux's only asset is its cost, in the eyes
of the consumers. Sadly, no other OS can beat that cost. Actually,
delete that "sadly".
++L
The *BSD's beat Linux 'cost' quite handily - even if CD's for both are
purchased, not downloaded.
Linux rapid and 'diffused' devel model and plethora of 'distros' creates a need
for for more time invested in migrating, porting, upgrading, seeking answers -
retraining, 'er 'keeping current'.
Grant, a *BSD might not be the best choice for playing music, videos, or games
(save perhaps OS X).
But OS X *also* beats Linux' cost, hands-down - and even on 50% to 100% more
costly hardware - unless one values time at a *negative* per-hour figure.
None of which is all that relevant to what Plan9 is best at.
Sharing networked resources per se? Not that *alone*.
Scitek/IBM/MS NETBIOS & SMB 'net use' or Novell 'attach' were there years
earlier than 'bind', get much the same end-results.
So too other Xerox-derived contemporaries (VINES, StreetTalk, etc.). Even
MAP/TOP.
But most of those are not as clean or efficient, let alone 'orthogonal' as the
Plan9 model.
Nor are their communications necessarily as robust. 'Early' Netware the
exception, when it still generally had an essentially 'no-fail' and
deterministic network physical layer, i.e. ARCNET, TCNS, 100-VG-AnyLAN.
On technical merit, Plan9 *should* be making inroads into the networked mobile
market. And Alcatel-Lucent *are* players there.
But too many folks are willing to either consider Plan9 effectively dead or
would like to keep it in a coma so as to 'feel righteous'. скопцы - like.
Was it 'Glenda' that Willie Nelson was singing about?
"...And sometimes it seems ... that she ain't worth the trouble at all
But she could be worth the world ...if somehow you could touch her at all.."
Bill
