3 ms·
I think the real flaw is thinking that there is single axis of quality: really, there are multiple axes. There's code quality: Plan 9 probably is superior to L
by zeveb 7y ago
I think the real flaw is thinking that there is single axis of quality: really, there are multiple axes. There's code quality: Plan 9 probably is superior to Linux, Windows or macOS. There's popularity: Plan 9 is inferior to the Big Three. There's orthogonality: Plan 9 is superior to the Big Three. There's availability of fundamental software like w web browser and emacs: Plan 9 is inferior to the Big Three. There's performance: Plan 9 might actually be better because it does less, but worse at truly intensive loads? I don't actually know. There's API surface: Plan 9 has a much smaller API, which is both superior (cleaner) and inferior (less features out of the box) — I think it's a net win, but reasonable people can disagree.
That said, once you've played around with Plan 9's filesystem ideas, they are IMHO clearly and inarguably correct, and should be adopted.
- coliveira 7y agoIn UNIX systems you already can adopt many of plan9's design ideas. For example, any application can open and read files to communicate with other apps. I think the main problem with plan9 is that what it offers can already be done in other flavors of UNIX. So, what remains as innovation is the software itself, which is not enough to make users adopt plan9.
- zeveb 7y ago> In UNIX systems you already can adopt many of plan9's design ideas. I don't think that's really true. You can't do the sort of things with namespaces and filesystems that one can do on Plan 9 in e.g. Linux.