What do people like about Plan 9
D1114131988
Auriel (82.182.149.46)
#
#CHARLES FORSYTH:
#
#! >> A single P9 box is brain dead, it is unable to 
#! >> demonstrate -any- of its advantages over a traditional OS.
#
#actually, i don't think that's quite right, if you look at the
#construction of many of the services, for instance. initial design
#is often given a focus by thinking about possible use of the name
#space and then the design or structure of that name space; when it
#makes sense, the consequent split into name-space provider and
#name-space user(s) can simplify application structure, regardless
#whether distribution is involved or not. thus, there is still
#advantage in its use and significant difference with more
#`traditional' systems.
#
#now, a message-passing system (say) will obviously encourage
#applications to be based on message-passing, but plan 9's name space
#sits at a higher level of abstraction than message-passing (or soft
#SOAP), and therefore comes in at a higher level of application
#design (i'd say). use of name spaces is encouraged and supported by
#mechanisms deeply embedded into the system itself.
#
#acme provides a good example of using those ideas on a single
#machine. it's a file server but that's not primarily for reasons of
#distribution, and indeed i haven't seen much use of its services
#being subject to import or export (though they could be). its
#activity is usually confined to a single box, but it's still an
#advantageous structure. that's why i often call it an `integrating'
#not an `integrated' environment. the latter tend to be
#self-contained (i know, i know. `plug-ins', where you have to come
#to grips with deep knowledge of the IDE's internals). acme is much
#more open-ended, and i shouldn't think the typical acme client has
#any idea or need to know what acme looks like inside.
#
#keyfs and factotum similarly simplify the interface for their
#clients, by being name space servers, again in a different way from
#traditional OSs. (implementation of the service itself is also given
#focus by its being a file server.)
#
#of course, you're right that there is still greater power once the
#name space is available across a network. one of the interesting
#things about the Vita grid work to me was how representing things in
#the name space led to a simple yet flexible interface from the
#client's point of view. it's described in terms of reading and
#writing a few files, and it's natural to describe the protocol for
#the use of those files. i wasn't involved in the design or
#implementation, but i found it easy to see what a new client had to
#do, much more so than with the more traditional API/ABI descriptions.
#
#ANTHONY SORACE:
#
#when i was first exposed to plan 9, i was a unix admin. the very
#first thing that struck me about it was /lib/ndb. plan 9 was build
#with networks in mind, and as such the handling of them is so far
#superior to, well, everything else as to be operating at a different
#level entirely. no more changing host names in 3-5 different places,
#no more worrying about if my dns data was synched with my arp data
#and so on. designing the system around the idea of being
#network-centric meant dealing with and organizing a network was
#simple, even when not making use of the advanced networking
#capabilities the system presents. the small stuff falls out of doing
#doing the big stuff right.
#
#a few days later i had my second big "whoa" moment with plan 9 while
#looking at aux/listen. tcp7 and tcp9 just blew my mind. i could
#write network listeners! in like three lines!!! whereas something
#like xinetd is (arguably; or not) an incremental step up from inetd
#on modern unix systems, aux/listen is something else entirely. i've
#written cross-protocol port forwarding in two lines of shell code.
#the amount of times since then that i've wished for aux/listen on
#whatever unix i was working on at the time is beyond number. it's
#not just incremental; it's totally different. and it works
#stand-alone, too.
#
#again: the small stuff falls out of doing the big stuff right.
#
#and plan 9 does the big stuff right.
#
#GEOFF COLLYER:
#
#One of the things I like about Plan 9 is that it requires almost no
#system administration, so adding more `common applications' for
#system administrators would seem to be just creating busy work.
#Barring problems with new hardware, after initial installation and
#set up of the main file server (which is never likely to resemble
#installation of any other system), here are the system
#administration activities needed:
#
# *	(re)configure the mail system: edit /mail/lib/rewrite;
#
# *	add a new machine: add one entry to /lib/ndb/local or your local
#	equivalent, plug the machine into a switch, insert a boot floppy if
#	it's a PC, turn it on;
#
# *	add a new printer: add one line to /sys/lib/lp/devices and one
#	entry to /lib/ndb/local or your local equivalent, plug it in, turn
#	it on;
#
# *	add a new user: type a newuser command on your file server
#	console, have the user login and run /sys/lib/newuser.
#
#Perhaps I've forgotten something, but those are the main activities
#and they're all pretty easy. Setting up a console server (add a
#Perle serial-port multiplexor, run some serial cables, and edit
#/lib/ndb/consoledb) makes administration even easier. There's no
#sendmail, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.
#There's no BIND, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.
#Without those two, the main (l)unix security bugs are absent.
#
#Familiar applications aren't going to get people intrigued about
#Plan 9, they're going to lull them into thinking that Plan 9 is Just
#Another Unix.
#
#I much prefer 8c & 8l to gcc & gld and /n/dump to CVS. Providing
#gcc, gld, CVS and the like would make developers think `what's so
#special about this system?', rather than `gee, there are some
#different and interesting ideas here'.
#
#I don't think that the lack of interest by the world at large is due
#to a lack of comfortable, familiar applications. I think it's got
#more to do with a lack of understanding of why Plan 9 is (*really!*)
#interesting and a shortage of people who find that utterly
#compelling. People have given various excuses in the past (lack of
#gcc or X11, cost, licence terms) but if you're really enthused, none
#of that matters. Unix was a hit because it filled a niche, and what
#passes for Unix these days is still filling that niche, and for a
#lot of peple that's good enough. Those of us who can't imagine going
#back to living on what passes for Unix are a definite minority.
#
#So what should be done? I don't think we should measure success by
#counting noses. I'm not even sure that Plan 9 needs to be a
#``success''. We're using it, we like it and perhaps that's enough.
#Keeping up with new hardware is a worthy goal. We're all stretched a
#bit thin; as far as I know, none of us are able to work on Plan 9
#development full-time. People have various pieces of work in
#progress. Perhaps after the election, the economy will pick up and
#we'll all have more time to devote.
#
#! 	`Plan 9: a ``Failure'' for 17 years and still ``failing''.'
#