9fans archive / 1997 / 04 / 86 / prev next From: Lucio de Re lucio@pro... Subject: The future of Plan9? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:09:23 +0200 *** Just an essay on Plan 9 and Inferno; if you prefer exclusively technical information this is best skipped. My apologies to those on the list who find the following irrelevant or irritating - mail me personally if you wish to castigate me, please do not waste any additional bandwidth. *** Whereas I agree with Digby that Plan 9 failings seem to be in the realm of compatibility with other existing operating systems, I think this is merely an unintentional smokescreen and that Plan 9's future will strictly remain in the hands of a few hobbyist. I am forced, quite unwillingly, to accept that Microsoft have successfully used the market's lack of sophistication to entrench their brand of mediocrity, and I have to grudgingly acknowledge that their superior marketing skills have sufficed to position them in a very solid monopolistic base. On the other hand, the public domain Unix products (Linux first, but FreeBSD, NetBSD and others as well) are providing the hobbyist with workable alternatives and in many instances serious production use is being made of them. Ironically, the traditionally Unix suppliers (notably Sun and AT&T, but DEC to some extent and that oddball company known as IBM) are showing signs that they appreciate the erosion the free Unixes are making in the Microsoft effort. To expand, Inferno, Java, Netscape, all run on Linux and might readily be ported to the *BSD realms - these "application" are valid adversaries to Microsoft's own products and have already caused Microsoft to change from a trend setter (at least as seen by the unsophisticated public) to a very obvious "me too" organisation. So where does Plan 9 fit in? I think the problem is more one of "what applications can I run on Plan 9?". The sad part is that the Plan 9 license makes it clear that the answer is "none". Were I to develop the ultimate alternative to MS-Word on Plan 9, I could at best hope to find a sympathetic ear within Lucent before considering taking it to the marketplace. In such a situation, it is very difficult to dedicate some serious effort to such a goal. I do believe that it was expedient for Bell Labs to lay down the rules as they did, and I think Plan 9 would not be what it is had commercial interests been more influential in its development, but I also believe that the innovations introduced by the Plan 9/Brazil/Inferno combination could go a long way to supplant MS-things in the marketplace. But a "killer" application (MS-Word was for Windows what 1-2-3 had been for the IBM PC) is essential to this end. I think it matters little which of Plan 9, Brazil or Inferno is going to be the platform on which such a "killer" application can be developed; any of them would be superior to existing platforms, although my bets would go with Inferno. On the other hand, Lotus could deliver 1-2-3 because they developed on a moderately inexpensive platform: I have no idea how expensive the Inferno licence might be, but it would be a lot better if I could walk into my nearest computer store and for less than a hundred dollar (US) I could buy a replacement for or supplement to Windows-95 that made it possible, for example, for me to develop a "program", say, to exchange music, interactively, with my friend across town. Obviously, I have no such killer application in mind, but the right marketing approach, inclusive of a sensible price tag (the ability to download Inferno is all very well, but I think better marketing would be to charge a nominal fee and use the "profits" to publicise the product) might make Limbo the new Turbo Pascal and put Inferno firmly on the map of alternatives to Windows 95. The talent for such development is out there and the time certainly seems ripe for exciting innovations, but the tools available (Java, Visual Basic, Visual C++) are still bound to an obsolete way to do application development. In my mind, Limbo is sufficiently different to encourage original thinking. Unfortunately, Plan 9 cannot do this, having never reached a quality control stage and having been orphaned before it became a commonplace, if rough tool. But what I have seen of Inferno seems a very reasonable offspring of Plan 9, its greater market-oriented maturity, unless I'm much mistaken about it, bodes well for its future. AT&T have a sad reputation for failing to market ideas that could have been very successful, let's hope that Lucent can break with this tradition :-) Note: I believe that Plan 9 benefited greatly by not being encumbered with market-oriented objectives. It is my opinion and cannot be proven or refuted. Inferno now has sound foundations as a result, so it is left to the marketing forces to shape it further. It would be a vindication of my beliefs if it could succeed on the merit of such foundations rather than on an aggressive and probably misguiding advertising campaign. Whether marketing people can appreciate this and build on Inferno's strengths is left to be seen. -- Lucio de Re (lucio@pro...) Disclaimer: I'm working at getting my opinions to agree with me.