3 ms·
One of the success of plan9 was to reduce the number of tools (and the number of command line options for the tools). For example ftp and the option -r of cp ha
by webreac 14y ago
One of the success of plan9 was to reduce the number of tools (and the number of command line options for the tools). For example ftp and the option -r of cp have been killed.
Plan9 is marvellous. The only reason I do not install it for my everyday use is that it is not a mainstream OS (with up to date chrome, openoffice, XBMC and virtualbox)
- jff 14y agoIf it had all of those things, it wouldn't really be Plan 9 any more. Grab a decent Linux box, shove it under your desk, and use VNC or X forwarding to display those programs on your Plan 9 terminal. You can keep your storage on a Plan 9 file server, then have your Linux box mount that (9p support is in Linux). Or, if you're willing to put up with some slightly outdated software, Linuxemu can be a decent choice. It's doable. I did an awful lot of my graduate work sitting at a Plan 9 terminal, from writing code to just browsing the web with Opera.
- mhurron 14y agoA separate, contained server to run programs that can't talk to anything else is sort of against the whole Plan 9 idea, it's basically what Pike is complaining about here. All you did was turn a Plan 9 into a dumb terminal and NAS. Why would I do that when I could ditch the Plan 9 box and save money just by having the Linux machine, which apparently was needed for running everything in the first place. The idea of Plan 9 was not to have no user applications running on it.