> developing new, non-unix operating systems which?
On 9/1/20, Ethan Gardener <eeke...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > 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-M77c8d62be17129ad668a8ba2 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
