8 ms·

I up-voted this in "new" in the hopes of an interesting debate from smarter people than me about why Plan 9 didn't succeed or what would it take for a new OS to

I up-voted this in "new" in the hopes of an interesting debate from smarter people than me about why Plan 9 didn't succeed or what would it take for a new OS to break the status quo. But 2 hours in, 0 comments. Is there really nothing to say anymore about this? Okay. here's a question: how would the world look like today had Android started based on Plan 9 instead of Linux?

jeffreyrogers 12y ago
My understanding of Plan 9 is that the primary benefits it brought are in its ability to make a large collection of computers look like one unified system. So rather than asking what would it look like if Android was based on Plan 9, I'd think of it as: what would it look like if my laptop, TV, and smartphone all ran Plan 9. I think then you'd have a scenario in which, for example, you can pick up your phone and tell your TV to start streaming some file you have on your laptop. You can probably do this now using some collection of complicated programs that you have to install, but with Plan 9 it would be easy since everything appeared to be just one part of a larger computing system. Or another example: you're working at your office with a desktop computer running Plan 9. Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. So that's how things would be different I think. Not revolutionary, but definitely an improvement on what we have now. (Note: I'm not a Plan 9 expert and have never actually used it, however, I do find the ideas from it interesting and have read a bit about it, so I think the above is fairly accurate).
- Swizec 12y ago
  > Or another example: you're working at your office with a desktop computer running Plan 9. Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. So basically an IP nightmare for many companies?
  - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
    No more a nightmare than someone bringing in a flash drive and copying the file to it before they left. You'd only have access to things you already had access to.
    - Swizec 12y ago
      My girlfriend can't even access her work email unless she uses a company sanctioned laptop. Sure that's just because she doesn't know how to set up VPN access on her own, but still.
      - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
        Right, but there are still access control settings in Plan9 that would be able to limit access if the administrator chose to do so, there is just more flexibility to what can be done by default.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        I just got into a mess where the company VPN uses a windows/mac specific client, no linux version and no way to access the VPN. So knowing how to set up VPN access 'on my own' is currently of no use to me.
      - Someone 12y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure. Allowing employees to move arbitrary hardware running arbitrary software into their VPN is a security risk many companies do not want to take. That is why it took pressure to get iPhones into enterprise networks.
  - jeffreyrogers 12y ago
    It was mostly an example. And it's relatively to avoid the IP issues. Just don't let employees personal computers be part of the corporate Plan 9 system.
  - Renaud 12y ago
    But that's already the case if you company uses Google Docs or Office365. If a company is intent on constraining access to data from its office space only, then it wouldn't select or open itself to such systems.
- sampo 12y ago
  > Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. I do this all the time, Gnome file manager (Nautilus) mounts my work computer over sftp with three mouse clicks (Connect to Server / select server / Connect). Granted, I can only work on the remote files in Nautilus, and with GUI programs than I launch by right-clicking on the files in Nautilus. If I want a command line, I need to do some other, but also simple, tricks.
  - rakoo 12y ago
    Plan 9 goes far beyond than that. Everything can be shared automatically, because everything is a file. Here are some scenarios that should be possible: - You can access files remotely automatically from any application (akin to what sshfs does) - You can access non-files remotely automatically: a printer is just a fd you write to - A GPU from a distant cluster is just a resource you can use as if it were local (I'm speaking of implementation, not performance). - A mail service can be accessed on a mail server, which is itself not connected to the wild internet but goes through a firewall... itself accessible through the same file protocol. Oh and the mail you want to send sits in your outbox on your phone, so you just grab it from your computer. - You can play the music that lives on your machine on the speakers anywhere in your house by communicating with the remote fd - One of the dream of Rob Pike (co-inventor) is that you wouldn't need a multi-core machine in your pocket for your mobile lives, you'd only need a good connection so you can access all resources on any server that is connected to the network. Your "smartphone" would then just be a terminal to pilot all your resources. All of this accessible with the same interface, available in the OS. It may be have been a ludicrous dream, especially when we look at how much data would have been shuffling between machines, but the prospect of such networking still sounds awesome.
    - sampo 12y ago
      So, could we imagine a startup making Internet of Things, and smart homes, and basing their tech on Plan 9 instead of Linux?
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  That all sounds neat, but how does it work on less than ideal networks? The non trivial jitter and latency would mess up programs that assume things are local. Even things like buffering audio needs to be network aware. If local, low latency can be achieved. If remote, then buffer to avoid skips. I'm a bit suspicious of things that make network access transparent.
  - _3u10 12y ago
    Yup, as anyone who has ever run a program that accesses files over NFS knows it all sounds very wonderful on paper and absolutely sucks in real life.
  - stormbrew 12y ago
    I think the thing people tend to miss in looking at plan9 is that, it being true that the infrastructure it provided doesn't explicitly solve all these last-mile problems people have with network transparency, it does solve several major problems you come to before you can even reason about that. Having a uniform network protocol, a reasonable multi-node security model, and a workable method of uniformly addressing remote resources are the horse, what you do with it is the cart.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    QnX does all this and more and it works quite well. NFS is just a particularly botched implementation of an attempt at network transparency.
  - rakoo 12y ago
    Certainly horrible if we were to switch to it now, but if it had caught on, maybe we would have put more money on improving networks instead of improving CPUs. OTOH, Plan 9 was designed as a company-global "machine": you have a room filled with CPU clusters and storage clusters, and your own simple, stupid terminal to manage your resources. But your terminal is only a view; ultimately the data lives in the storage cluster and is processed in the CPU cluster. Take a look at this page, notably the figure 1: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/1st_edition/designing_plan_9 http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/1st_edition/designing_plan_9 As you can see, CPU and storage were expected to live on a high-speed, low-latency link because most of the data would fly between those two. Your terminal was expected to be anywhere else, possibly on the other end of a slow ethernet cable, and would coordinate the transmission of data from there. But most of the transmission would be between CPUs and storage. It wasn't supposed to be a truly p2p decentralized model.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
mveety 12y ago
Plan 9 is a terrible choice for a phone. It's meant more for networks of devices that work together instead of standalone devices that download shit. I don't use Plan 9 when I'm away from my fileserver and cpu servers because it looses a lot of the flexibility and what I love about it. I think that if you replace Linux with Plan 9 the world would look largely the same. It would probably work better together though.
- ori_b 12y ago
  >It's meant more for networks of devices that work together instead of standalone devices that download shit. Why should my phone just be a standalone device that just downloads shit? I wasn't a phone that can access that screen on my TV and send videos that sit on my file server, or can check 9p enabled sensors and display their status, our integrate with all sorts of crap around my house or at work. Rio, acme, and rc would be an awful match for phone hardware, but the plan 9 kernel and 9p protocol would be very nice.
  - skybrian 12y ago
    Phones and the apps that run on them have adapted to run reasonably with intermittently available, slow, pricey networks and relatively low amounts of power. Does Plan 9 have a smart way to deal with these network and power constraints? It seems unlikely since it wasn't designed for it.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      To me that's a bit like arguing that Linux/Windows/OS X should have driven broadband take-up. What actually happened was that a meta-OS - the web - drove broadband take-up, and broadband providers scrambled to improve the technology to meet demand. The demand for super-bandwidth mobile services isn't there in anything like the same way. And there's no equivalent meta-OS for mobile. But... at some point we're going to be moving to non-local storage and non-local processing, and Linux isn't really ideal for that. My guess is that will happen when computing finally starts moving past concepts that were developed in the late 1960s. AI may well be a driver of a non-local distributed computing which isn't based on the cycles-as-utility or cycles-as-private-resource models we're stuck with now. Is it too unrealistic to consider the possibility that the web could evolve into a single connected intelligent application that automatically load-balances and distributes cycles and storage across all connected devices?
rodgerd 12y ago
If the conniptions over changes like kdbus and systemd s any guide, one problems is that there are too many people invested in "that's the way we've always done it." The fact the Gods of Unix moved on doesn't seem to bother people.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  I don't see how kdbus and systemd are relevant here. The design philosophy of the latter is just about a polar opposite to that of Plan 9. On the other hand, major Unices being more Plan 9-esque would actually bring them closer to the Unix philosophy that opponents of the aforementioned technologies frequently cite.
cyorir 12y ago
As far as why Plan 9 didn't break the status quo, I'll have to agree with what Eric Raymond said in 2003[0]: Plan 9 was not "compelling enough," whereas Unix was "good enough." In my own opinion, a sufficient number of people, projects, and services were already using Unix-based systems, and they had constructed their projects and services around this Unix model. The marginal benefits of Plan 9 were not great enough to offer sufficient incentive to deviate from the Unix model. [0] http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/plan9.html http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/plan9.html
- EdiX 12y ago
  ESR is wrong on this point. Not completely wrong, I can imagine a world where things went differently and his assessment was correct but it's not the world we live in. Plan 9 "failed" because it spent almost 2 decades between "almost impossible to license" and "almost unmaintained". AT&T was more concerned with preventing anyone but them from making money off of Plan 9 than they were concerned with actually making money off of Plan 9. Lucent only got it long after the ship had already sailed, they don't seem to know what to do with it, it's commendable (and surprising) that they did not just gun it down.
justincormack 12y ago
The ideas from Plan 9 are very compelling, and parts of them, like namespacing, have been adopted, thats why we have Docker now to some extent. But for operating systems, build from scratch is hard, there is a lot of code. But it is getting easier. See it as the prototype...
- stormbrew 12y ago
  Plan9-style namespacing -- as something that users can do directly without privilege -- has definitely not been adopted outside plan9. What we have is a pale pale shadow of the capabilities exposed by that. Unfortunately, true user control over the namespace is incompatible with the unix security model (thanks to setuid being the only means of privilege escalation), and the namespace compositing that makes, for example, just stacking bin directories onto /bin instead of using a PATH requires that it be possible to have more than one file with the same name in the same view to work well, which is (probably?) incompatible with POSIX.
hollerith 12y ago
Here is my theory on one of the reasons Plan 9 did not succeed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8392030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8392030
- at-fates-hands 12y ago
  You points seem pretty obvious. In order to get people to switch, at least some basic functionality people use everyday should be the same. Without similar basic functionality, people will use it briefly, get frustrated, and then never use your OS again. They're also going to tell all their friends and your new OS is dumpster bound before it even gets out of beta.
  - hollerith 12y ago
    >You points seem pretty obvious. It was not obvious to Rob Pike (who if not the "leader" of Plan 9 was at least the developer with the highest status). Pike seemed to lack an understanding of how to entice users whose motivations and interests are different from his own to go through the trouble of actually learning and acclimating to his software. A general lack of marketing savvy, perhaps. Here is another example of that: In an post to the plan 9 mailing list (9fans) written in the 1990s, Pike seemed genuinely confused as to why some browser maker (Opera maybe?) did not respond positively to Pike's invitation to port their browser to Plan 9. This was at a time when on a really good day Plan 9 had fewer than 200 users (most of whom were researchers at Bell Labs and maybe coworkers of those researchers). "I never even received the courtesy of a reply," is how Pike ended the post. I did not mean to focus so long on one personality. The important point is that there's a lot of things one has to pay attention to if one expects a particular piece of software to gain widespread adoption. In particular, it is not enough to show that you are a very impressive person surrounded by other impressive people with some very innovative idea.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      It's an odd failing of incredibly smart people that their needs are the same as everyone else's. It seems to be very common (maybe dumb people make the same mistake as well, but you just don't notice it as much)
didibus 12y ago
My understanding is that Plan 9 is the original intent of Unix materialized. That is, the fundamental concept that everything is a file. Plan 9 managed to prove that everything can be a file. I think the difference would have been that some things would be easier to achieve, if Android had been built around Plan9. But Plan9 itself doesn't have the maturity that Linux has, so bringing it to maturity would have taken time.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > Plan 9 managed to prove that everything can be a file. I am not convinced about GPU performance specially when Plan9 has a simple 2D software render.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
typedweb 12y ago
Here's a port of inferno (a Plan9 derivative idea) running on android phones called HellaPhone: https://bitbucket.org/floren/inferno/wiki/Home https://bitbucket.org/floren/inferno/wiki/Home
mortdeus 12y ago
Plan9 failed because of a failure of efficient marketing and executive management. http://usphoenix.net/science,%20technology/what_really_happened_to_lucent_t.htm http://usphoenix.net/science,%20technology/what_really_happe...
- mortdeus 12y ago
  Though its fair to say that the ideas first introduced in plan9 lives on today as technologies like Go and Docker.
- Aloha 12y ago
  Very will written if short piece. Plan9 failed because lucent failed.
fafner 12y ago
I think one of the main reasons why Plan 9 didn't succeed, was simply the fact that it wasn't free software from the beginning. Plan 9 was released around the same time as Linux. But it was treated as a secret and then tried to be directly marketed. That way it simply missed the opportunity that Linux took because Linux was free software. Only in 2002 was Plan 9 released under a free software license.

jeffreyrogers 12y ago

My understanding of Plan 9 is that the primary benefits it brought are in its ability to make a large collection of computers look like one unified system. So rather than asking what would it look like if Android was based on Plan 9, I'd think of it as: what would it look like if my laptop, TV, and smartphone all ran Plan 9. I think then you'd have a scenario in which, for example, you can pick up your phone and tell your TV to start streaming some file you have on your laptop. You can probably do this now using some collection of complicated programs that you have to install, but with Plan 9 it would be easy since everything appeared to be just one part of a larger computing system. Or another example: you're working at your office with a desktop computer running Plan 9. Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. So that's how things would be different I think. Not revolutionary, but definitely an improvement on what we have now. (Note: I'm not a Plan 9 expert and have never actually used it, however, I do find the ideas from it interesting and have read a bit about it, so I think the above is fairly accurate).

Swizec 12y ago
> Or another example: you're working at your office with a desktop computer running Plan 9. Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. So basically an IP nightmare for many companies?
- forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
  No more a nightmare than someone bringing in a flash drive and copying the file to it before they left. You'd only have access to things you already had access to.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    My girlfriend can't even access her work email unless she uses a company sanctioned laptop. Sure that's just because she doesn't know how to set up VPN access on her own, but still.
    - forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
      Right, but there are still access control settings in Plan9 that would be able to limit access if the administrator chose to do so, there is just more flexibility to what can be done by default.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      I just got into a mess where the company VPN uses a windows/mac specific client, no linux version and no way to access the VPN. So knowing how to set up VPN access 'on my own' is currently of no use to me.
    - Someone 12y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. Allowing employees to move arbitrary hardware running arbitrary software into their VPN is a security risk many companies do not want to take. That is why it took pressure to get iPhones into enterprise networks.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago
  It was mostly an example. And it's relatively to avoid the IP issues. Just don't let employees personal computers be part of the corporate Plan 9 system.
- Renaud 12y ago
  But that's already the case if you company uses Google Docs or Office365. If a company is intent on constraining access to data from its office space only, then it wouldn't select or open itself to such systems.
sampo 12y ago
> Then you leave the office for the night, but want to finish something at home, so you open up your laptop and have access to all your work files as if they are stored locally on your laptop. You just edit them in place and the copy at work is automatically updated as you go. I do this all the time, Gnome file manager (Nautilus) mounts my work computer over sftp with three mouse clicks (Connect to Server / select server / Connect). Granted, I can only work on the remote files in Nautilus, and with GUI programs than I launch by right-clicking on the files in Nautilus. If I want a command line, I need to do some other, but also simple, tricks.
- rakoo 12y ago
  Plan 9 goes far beyond than that. Everything can be shared automatically, because everything is a file. Here are some scenarios that should be possible: - You can access files remotely automatically from any application (akin to what sshfs does) - You can access non-files remotely automatically: a printer is just a fd you write to - A GPU from a distant cluster is just a resource you can use as if it were local (I'm speaking of implementation, not performance). - A mail service can be accessed on a mail server, which is itself not connected to the wild internet but goes through a firewall... itself accessible through the same file protocol. Oh and the mail you want to send sits in your outbox on your phone, so you just grab it from your computer. - You can play the music that lives on your machine on the speakers anywhere in your house by communicating with the remote fd - One of the dream of Rob Pike (co-inventor) is that you wouldn't need a multi-core machine in your pocket for your mobile lives, you'd only need a good connection so you can access all resources on any server that is connected to the network. Your "smartphone" would then just be a terminal to pilot all your resources. All of this accessible with the same interface, available in the OS. It may be have been a ludicrous dream, especially when we look at how much data would have been shuffling between machines, but the prospect of such networking still sounds awesome.
  - sampo 12y ago
    So, could we imagine a startup making Internet of Things, and smart homes, and basing their tech on Plan 9 instead of Linux?
MichaelGG 12y ago
That all sounds neat, but how does it work on less than ideal networks? The non trivial jitter and latency would mess up programs that assume things are local. Even things like buffering audio needs to be network aware. If local, low latency can be achieved. If remote, then buffer to avoid skips. I'm a bit suspicious of things that make network access transparent.
- _3u10 12y ago
  Yup, as anyone who has ever run a program that accesses files over NFS knows it all sounds very wonderful on paper and absolutely sucks in real life.
- stormbrew 12y ago
  I think the thing people tend to miss in looking at plan9 is that, it being true that the infrastructure it provided doesn't explicitly solve all these last-mile problems people have with network transparency, it does solve several major problems you come to before you can even reason about that. Having a uniform network protocol, a reasonable multi-node security model, and a workable method of uniformly addressing remote resources are the horse, what you do with it is the cart.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  QnX does all this and more and it works quite well. NFS is just a particularly botched implementation of an attempt at network transparency.
- rakoo 12y ago
  Certainly horrible if we were to switch to it now, but if it had caught on, maybe we would have put more money on improving networks instead of improving CPUs. OTOH, Plan 9 was designed as a company-global "machine": you have a room filled with CPU clusters and storage clusters, and your own simple, stupid terminal to manage your resources. But your terminal is only a view; ultimately the data lives in the storage cluster and is processed in the CPU cluster. Take a look at this page, notably the figure 1: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/1st_edition/designing_plan_9 http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/1st_edition/designing_plan_9 As you can see, CPU and storage were expected to live on a high-speed, low-latency link because most of the data would fly between those two. Your terminal was expected to be anywhere else, possibly on the other end of a slow ethernet cable, and would coordinate the transmission of data from there. But most of the transmission would be between CPUs and storage. It wasn't supposed to be a truly p2p decentralized model.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mveety 12y ago

Plan 9 is a terrible choice for a phone. It's meant more for networks of devices that work together instead of standalone devices that download shit. I don't use Plan 9 when I'm away from my fileserver and cpu servers because it looses a lot of the flexibility and what I love about it. I think that if you replace Linux with Plan 9 the world would look largely the same. It would probably work better together though.

ori_b 12y ago
>It's meant more for networks of devices that work together instead of standalone devices that download shit. Why should my phone just be a standalone device that just downloads shit? I wasn't a phone that can access that screen on my TV and send videos that sit on my file server, or can check 9p enabled sensors and display their status, our integrate with all sorts of crap around my house or at work. Rio, acme, and rc would be an awful match for phone hardware, but the plan 9 kernel and 9p protocol would be very nice.
- skybrian 12y ago
  Phones and the apps that run on them have adapted to run reasonably with intermittently available, slow, pricey networks and relatively low amounts of power. Does Plan 9 have a smart way to deal with these network and power constraints? It seems unlikely since it wasn't designed for it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    To me that's a bit like arguing that Linux/Windows/OS X should have driven broadband take-up. What actually happened was that a meta-OS - the web - drove broadband take-up, and broadband providers scrambled to improve the technology to meet demand. The demand for super-bandwidth mobile services isn't there in anything like the same way. And there's no equivalent meta-OS for mobile. But... at some point we're going to be moving to non-local storage and non-local processing, and Linux isn't really ideal for that. My guess is that will happen when computing finally starts moving past concepts that were developed in the late 1960s. AI may well be a driver of a non-local distributed computing which isn't based on the cycles-as-utility or cycles-as-private-resource models we're stuck with now. Is it too unrealistic to consider the possibility that the web could evolve into a single connected intelligent application that automatically load-balances and distributes cycles and storage across all connected devices?

rodgerd 12y ago

If the conniptions over changes like kdbus and systemd s any guide, one problems is that there are too many people invested in "that's the way we've always done it." The fact the Gods of Unix moved on doesn't seem to bother people.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I don't see how kdbus and systemd are relevant here. The design philosophy of the latter is just about a polar opposite to that of Plan 9. On the other hand, major Unices being more Plan 9-esque would actually bring them closer to the Unix philosophy that opponents of the aforementioned technologies frequently cite.

cyorir 12y ago

As far as why Plan 9 didn't break the status quo, I'll have to agree with what Eric Raymond said in 2003[0]: Plan 9 was not "compelling enough," whereas Unix was "good enough." In my own opinion, a sufficient number of people, projects, and services were already using Unix-based systems, and they had constructed their projects and services around this Unix model. The marginal benefits of Plan 9 were not great enough to offer sufficient incentive to deviate from the Unix model. [0] http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/plan9.html http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/plan9.html

EdiX 12y ago
ESR is wrong on this point. Not completely wrong, I can imagine a world where things went differently and his assessment was correct but it's not the world we live in. Plan 9 "failed" because it spent almost 2 decades between "almost impossible to license" and "almost unmaintained". AT&T was more concerned with preventing anyone but them from making money off of Plan 9 than they were concerned with actually making money off of Plan 9. Lucent only got it long after the ship had already sailed, they don't seem to know what to do with it, it's commendable (and surprising) that they did not just gun it down.

justincormack 12y ago

The ideas from Plan 9 are very compelling, and parts of them, like namespacing, have been adopted, thats why we have Docker now to some extent. But for operating systems, build from scratch is hard, there is a lot of code. But it is getting easier. See it as the prototype...

stormbrew 12y ago
Plan9-style namespacing -- as something that users can do directly without privilege -- has definitely not been adopted outside plan9. What we have is a pale pale shadow of the capabilities exposed by that. Unfortunately, true user control over the namespace is incompatible with the unix security model (thanks to setuid being the only means of privilege escalation), and the namespace compositing that makes, for example, just stacking bin directories onto /bin instead of using a PATH requires that it be possible to have more than one file with the same name in the same view to work well, which is (probably?) incompatible with POSIX.

hollerith 12y ago

Here is my theory on one of the reasons Plan 9 did not succeed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8392030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8392030

at-fates-hands 12y ago
You points seem pretty obvious. In order to get people to switch, at least some basic functionality people use everyday should be the same. Without similar basic functionality, people will use it briefly, get frustrated, and then never use your OS again. They're also going to tell all their friends and your new OS is dumpster bound before it even gets out of beta.
- hollerith 12y ago
  >You points seem pretty obvious. It was not obvious to Rob Pike (who if not the "leader" of Plan 9 was at least the developer with the highest status). Pike seemed to lack an understanding of how to entice users whose motivations and interests are different from his own to go through the trouble of actually learning and acclimating to his software. A general lack of marketing savvy, perhaps. Here is another example of that: In an post to the plan 9 mailing list (9fans) written in the 1990s, Pike seemed genuinely confused as to why some browser maker (Opera maybe?) did not respond positively to Pike's invitation to port their browser to Plan 9. This was at a time when on a really good day Plan 9 had fewer than 200 users (most of whom were researchers at Bell Labs and maybe coworkers of those researchers). "I never even received the courtesy of a reply," is how Pike ended the post. I did not mean to focus so long on one personality. The important point is that there's a lot of things one has to pay attention to if one expects a particular piece of software to gain widespread adoption. In particular, it is not enough to show that you are a very impressive person surrounded by other impressive people with some very innovative idea.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    It's an odd failing of incredibly smart people that their needs are the same as everyone else's. It seems to be very common (maybe dumb people make the same mistake as well, but you just don't notice it as much)

didibus 12y ago

My understanding is that Plan 9 is the original intent of Unix materialized. That is, the fundamental concept that everything is a file. Plan 9 managed to prove that everything can be a file. I think the difference would have been that some things would be easier to achieve, if Android had been built around Plan9. But Plan9 itself doesn't have the maturity that Linux has, so bringing it to maturity would have taken time.

pjmlp 12y ago
> Plan 9 managed to prove that everything can be a file. I am not convinced about GPU performance specially when Plan9 has a simple 2D software render.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

typedweb 12y ago

Here's a port of inferno (a Plan9 derivative idea) running on android phones called HellaPhone: https://bitbucket.org/floren/inferno/wiki/Home https://bitbucket.org/floren/inferno/wiki/Home

mortdeus 12y ago

Plan9 failed because of a failure of efficient marketing and executive management. http://usphoenix.net/science,%20technology/what_really_happened_to_lucent_t.htm http://usphoenix.net/science,%20technology/what_really_happe...

mortdeus 12y ago
Though its fair to say that the ideas first introduced in plan9 lives on today as technologies like Go and Docker.
Aloha 12y ago
Very will written if short piece. Plan9 failed because lucent failed.

fafner 12y ago

I think one of the main reasons why Plan 9 didn't succeed, was simply the fact that it wasn't free software from the beginning. Plan 9 was released around the same time as Linux. But it was treated as a secret and then tried to be directly marketed. That way it simply missed the opportunity that Linux took because Linux was free software. Only in 2002 was Plan 9 released under a free software license.