11 ms·
> Plan 9, for networked graphical machine. Oddly enough, I quickly googled, and it seems AT&T decided to target the embedded market with Plan9 which feels like
by the_only_law 4y ago
> Plan 9, for networked graphical machine.
Oddly enough, I quickly googled, and it seems AT&T decided to target the embedded market with Plan9 which feels like a bit of an weird niche to put it.
There’s no way I can see a new operating system dethroning the NT/*nix world at least not without somehow catching up to decades of hardware no one but those two support.
- lproven 4y ago9front is still alive and maintained, and there are two forks that I know of, Jehanne and Harvey. Inferno has been ported to at least one smartphone. Both run natively on certain models of Raspberry Pi. Another strategy is what OpenVMS is doing initially: there is a single model of reference hardware, but the initial version 9.2 now available runs on and supports Xen, KVM, VMware and Virtualbox. Hyper-V is coming in 9.2-1. But the real question is: should it support decades of hardware? Why, if it's something new, doing something different? Perhaps it only needs to support its own hardware, and if it proves viable, then additional models and support can be added? I did a Fosdem talk on this general idea, and it's been a recent HN discussion. The title was "Starting Over". You might find it interesting.