4 ms·

The Successor to Research Unix Was Plan 9 from Bell Labs

31 points by beardyw 3y ago

lproven 3y ago
This is the article-format adaptation of part 3 of my FOSDEM talk earlier this month. Part 4, the last part, coming soon, but it's more of an epilogue.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago
  Related articles & discussions: Part 1 Drowning in code: The ever-growing problem of ever-growing codebases https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39356574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39356574 Part 2 Forgetting the history of Unix is coding us into a corner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Regarding the symlink on Microsoft OSes remark, Xenix was Microsoft's UNIX. Other than that, great article.
  - lproven 3y ago
    Thank you! Yes, it is true, Microsoft did indeed have a Unix... But Xenix was a was a fairly obscure niche OS until SCO took it over & propelled it to greatness. I deployed it in production in 1989 and we had no idea it had ever been an MS product. That was already forgotten.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      As someone that learned UNIX on Xenix, we were pretty much aware of it being Microsoft. > If we go way back in time, Microsoft was actually the first one to go to AT&T and beg to get a nice high-volume commercial license for Unix. And for many, many years we were the highest volume licensee, not only for our own Xenix products, but Siemens with theirs, Santa Cruz with theirs, and dozens and dozens of sub-licensees -- https://web.archive.org/web/20010818203946/http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/industry&tech/uexpo.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20010818203946/http://www.micros...
      - lproven 3y ago
        I find I have to say this a lot online: It is an important and very common error of thinking to assume that everyone has the same experiences as you. Don't think "because I did X and found Y, everyone that does X must find Y." I too learned Unix on Xenix. I installed Xenix 286 on my IBM PC-AT in my first job, fitting a 2nd (15MB) HDD to do it (ST-506, 5.25" FH). I got it exchanging messages via UUCP with Xenix 386 over a serial line to a larger 386 machine that wasn't mine. This was 1988. Our office wasn't networked -- LANs were too new and too expensive. No WWW, no internet, no Google. Before Linux, before 386BSD. In my next job I took out my own personal online subscription, which I still have; that email address is now 33 years old. I learned Unix from the SCO manuals, which were excellent. I fondly remember the Permuted Index. No mention of Microsoft. Only occasionally in copyright messages, and they were everywhere and were meaningless and ignored. It would be decades later I discovered Xenix was originally an MS product. To me, it was a SCO product, and SCO were good guys. SCO != SCO Group, who now have tainted the name and most people reading "SCO" don't know the difference. But, for me, Xenix == SCO.
eadmund 3y ago
Plan 9 does so very much right. On Linux, namespaces are a mess of complexity which waited for Docker to make them usable; on Plan 9, a container runtime is basically a shell script. I suspect that Plan 9 would be a more stable underlying OS for many places where Linux is used today, to include Android. I don’t know if it would be as efficient, but I really do question how much more important efficiency is than simplicity and correctness.
- josephg 3y ago
  Linux is “correct” enough. It generally does what it says on the tin. The sad truth is that users don’t care how simple software is to write. They do care about performance and battery life on their devices. The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. Every time - so long as any unnecessary complexity is hidden from users. Simplicity buys you velocity, and velocity matters. But that’s a secondary effect.
  - exe34 3y ago
    > The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. No it doesn't. Developers and their employers choose slow and complex that saves them time in development, and customers choose things that exist over things that don't. They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex.
    - josephg 3y ago
      Do you care how simple Google search is, internally, for Google? No. All that matters is it has a good UI, and it returns good search results. > They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex. I also choose IntelliJ over Vim.
      - exe34 3y ago
        As long as I don't have to buy a new computer every year to run the latest Google, I don't care. If my browser or other essential application keeps growing in ram requirements without ground breaking improvements, I grumble. > I also choose IntelliJ over Vim. Now do the same with your tram or parking ticket app.
andrewstuart 3y ago
It is extremely hard to unseat good enough and replace it with better.
- teddyh 3y ago
  Especially when “better” is expensive, but “good enough” is free.
  - ctrw 3y ago
    Plan 9 is just as free as Linux.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      Now, but not in the beginning, when this mattered.
      - jecel 3y ago
        Exactly - it was $500 for Plan 9 versus $0 for Linux which included all the sources until nobody was interested in Plan 9 anymore.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Just like UNIX versus VMS, MVS and others.
- crabbone 3y ago
  Unix wasn't "good enough". It was, essentially, the standard for communication. The reason it was developed and adopted is to be used for what today we'd call a router. The idea was that big "real" computers wouldn't need to have their own networking components, instead, they'd connect to small and "dumb" computers, who, in turn would all use the same system, subsequently, would be able to connect and communicate with each other. Unix was developed to be the small and "dumb" computer's OS. But, because it instantly monopolized the communication protocols, it became impossible to replace. Only a system that was 100% compatible with Unix would be able to do so, and that would be just another Unix. In retrospect, it's very strange that a lot of programmers think that Unix is a good OS, or try to learn from its design. It's kind of awful, even after a lot of increments that tried to remove the awfulness and polish some rough edges, it's still really bad. And it's also getting worse, as virtually all long-living software does because of bolted-on functionality that wasn't anticipated by the original design.
pjmlp 3y ago
> Until MS-DOS 5 in 1991, DOS didn't have a MOVE command, and no Microsoft OS had anything like symbolic links prior Windows 95's "shortcuts." Quite the contrary, given that Microsoft Xenix was the most successful PC UNIX until Microsoft decided it wasn't worth pursuing UNIX on their portfolio. Hardly did they knew how the server room would look like 40 years later.
sillywalk 3y ago
Plan 9 was ported to the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer as a 'lightweight' OS. http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/blue_gene/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/blue_gene/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225169133_Experiences_porting_the_Plan_9_research_operating_system_to_the_IBM_Blue_Gene_supercomputers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225169133_Experienc...

31 points by beardyw 3y ago

This is the article-format adaptation of part 3 of my FOSDEM talk earlier this month. Part 4, the last part, coming soon, but it's more of an epilogue.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related articles & discussions: Part 1 Drowning in code: The ever-growing problem of ever-growing codebases https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39356574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39356574 Part 2 Forgetting the history of Unix is coding us into a corner https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396685
pjmlp 3y ago
Regarding the symlink on Microsoft OSes remark, Xenix was Microsoft's UNIX. Other than that, great article.
- lproven 3y ago
  Thank you! Yes, it is true, Microsoft did indeed have a Unix... But Xenix was a was a fairly obscure niche OS until SCO took it over & propelled it to greatness. I deployed it in production in 1989 and we had no idea it had ever been an MS product. That was already forgotten.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    As someone that learned UNIX on Xenix, we were pretty much aware of it being Microsoft. > If we go way back in time, Microsoft was actually the first one to go to AT&T and beg to get a nice high-volume commercial license for Unix. And for many, many years we were the highest volume licensee, not only for our own Xenix products, but Siemens with theirs, Santa Cruz with theirs, and dozens and dozens of sub-licensees -- https://web.archive.org/web/20010818203946/http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/industry&tech/uexpo.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20010818203946/http://www.micros...
    - lproven 3y ago
      I find I have to say this a lot online: It is an important and very common error of thinking to assume that everyone has the same experiences as you. Don't think "because I did X and found Y, everyone that does X must find Y." I too learned Unix on Xenix. I installed Xenix 286 on my IBM PC-AT in my first job, fitting a 2nd (15MB) HDD to do it (ST-506, 5.25" FH). I got it exchanging messages via UUCP with Xenix 386 over a serial line to a larger 386 machine that wasn't mine. This was 1988. Our office wasn't networked -- LANs were too new and too expensive. No WWW, no internet, no Google. Before Linux, before 386BSD. In my next job I took out my own personal online subscription, which I still have; that email address is now 33 years old. I learned Unix from the SCO manuals, which were excellent. I fondly remember the Permuted Index. No mention of Microsoft. Only occasionally in copyright messages, and they were everywhere and were meaningless and ignored. It would be decades later I discovered Xenix was originally an MS product. To me, it was a SCO product, and SCO were good guys. SCO != SCO Group, who now have tainted the name and most people reading "SCO" don't know the difference. But, for me, Xenix == SCO.

eadmund 3y ago

Plan 9 does so very much right. On Linux, namespaces are a mess of complexity which waited for Docker to make them usable; on Plan 9, a container runtime is basically a shell script. I suspect that Plan 9 would be a more stable underlying OS for many places where Linux is used today, to include Android. I don’t know if it would be as efficient, but I really do question how much more important efficiency is than simplicity and correctness.

josephg 3y ago
Linux is “correct” enough. It generally does what it says on the tin. The sad truth is that users don’t care how simple software is to write. They do care about performance and battery life on their devices. The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. Every time - so long as any unnecessary complexity is hidden from users. Simplicity buys you velocity, and velocity matters. But that’s a secondary effect.
- exe34 3y ago
  > The market chooses complex and fast over simple but slow. No it doesn't. Developers and their employers choose slow and complex that saves them time in development, and customers choose things that exist over things that don't. They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex.
  - josephg 3y ago
    Do you care how simple Google search is, internally, for Google? No. All that matters is it has a good UI, and it returns good search results. > They don't normally have much of choice between simple and complex. I also choose IntelliJ over Vim.
    - exe34 3y ago
      As long as I don't have to buy a new computer every year to run the latest Google, I don't care. If my browser or other essential application keeps growing in ram requirements without ground breaking improvements, I grumble. > I also choose IntelliJ over Vim. Now do the same with your tram or parking ticket app.

andrewstuart 3y ago

It is extremely hard to unseat good enough and replace it with better.

teddyh 3y ago
Especially when “better” is expensive, but “good enough” is free.
- ctrw 3y ago
  Plan 9 is just as free as Linux.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    Now, but not in the beginning, when this mattered.
    - jecel 3y ago
      Exactly - it was $500 for Plan 9 versus $0 for Linux which included all the sources until nobody was interested in Plan 9 anymore.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Just like UNIX versus VMS, MVS and others.
crabbone 3y ago
Unix wasn't "good enough". It was, essentially, the standard for communication. The reason it was developed and adopted is to be used for what today we'd call a router. The idea was that big "real" computers wouldn't need to have their own networking components, instead, they'd connect to small and "dumb" computers, who, in turn would all use the same system, subsequently, would be able to connect and communicate with each other. Unix was developed to be the small and "dumb" computer's OS. But, because it instantly monopolized the communication protocols, it became impossible to replace. Only a system that was 100% compatible with Unix would be able to do so, and that would be just another Unix. In retrospect, it's very strange that a lot of programmers think that Unix is a good OS, or try to learn from its design. It's kind of awful, even after a lot of increments that tried to remove the awfulness and polish some rough edges, it's still really bad. And it's also getting worse, as virtually all long-living software does because of bolted-on functionality that wasn't anticipated by the original design.

pjmlp 3y ago

> Until MS-DOS 5 in 1991, DOS didn't have a MOVE command, and no Microsoft OS had anything like symbolic links prior Windows 95's "shortcuts." Quite the contrary, given that Microsoft Xenix was the most successful PC UNIX until Microsoft decided it wasn't worth pursuing UNIX on their portfolio. Hardly did they knew how the server room would look like 40 years later.

sillywalk 3y ago

Plan 9 was ported to the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer as a 'lightweight' OS. http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/blue_gene/ http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/blue_gene/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225169133_Experiences_porting_the_Plan_9_research_operating_system_to_the_IBM_Blue_Gene_supercomputers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225169133_Experienc...