Plan 9 is amazing. I just released my own ancient little operating system (see 'Show HN') which took some of Plan 9's ideas. Plan 9 was a massive inspiration at the time that it was released, I had it running on a really small machine for the time and I love the underlying concepts. It is a real pity that it never really took off.
Plan 9 is what Unix could have been, the whole idea that 'everything is a file' is so powerful that we ended up not believing it and the resulting hacks are all so ugly in comparison. Plan 9 does this so consistently that you can test a new version of the window manager in a window on the currently running window manager.
For fun I ran the Bell-Core window manager inside a Plan 9 window at some point just to see if it could be done.
>the whole idea that 'everything is a file' is so powerful that we ended up not believing it and the resulting hacks are all so ugly in comparison
I agree. People find it hard to wrap their heads around simple and uniform interfaces. They can’t simplify what they want to accomplish, they want to inflict their complexity on everyone.
Simplifying is maybe emotionally deflating, it makes for a less satisfying solution. Career-wise, it is better to propose complex solutions that take lots of manpower. That’s how you climb the ladder.
> Applications are written in the Limbo programming language, which provides static typing, garbage collection, and built-in concurrency features. Limbo code is compiled into architecture-independent bytecode executed by the Dis virtual machine. The Dis VM can interpret the bytecode or compile it just-in-time into native instructions, allowing applications to run consistently across different platforms.
Can you port existing software to it, or do you have to rewrite everything in Limbo? Because if you do, that right there almost completely kills it IMO.
As someone who tried to use both, there is little you can do with it in practice when compared to Plan9. There was a _great_ baremetal port of Inferno to the Raspberry Pi, but there aren't any modern versions for other SBCs.
Plan9port is available in a lot of package managers. I've been using mk and rc for my build/task running and scripting needs for a while and have been very happy. rc in particular is such a concise scripting language that shaves off all the rough edges of sh (not to mention bash), I rarely need to reference docs.
There is likely some history there. Plan 9 is the only OS I know of that bakes in all of the documentation and there is a heavily ingrained culture of 'RTFM!' in the community.
The interesting part is the two references to a person who has long since passed, Uriel. The make file and configure files both print "read the README file." I am sure he complained that most people would blindly unpack the source and immediately run make or configure without ever reading anything. It could be a way to force people to RTFM. But that is just my opinion. If you really want an answer, drop an email to the 9fans mailing list and ask. It's still active.
Plan 9 is amazing. I just released my own ancient little operating system (see 'Show HN') which took some of Plan 9's ideas. Plan 9 was a massive inspiration at the time that it was released, I had it running on a really small machine for the time and I love the underlying concepts. It is a real pity that it never really took off.
Plan 9 is what Unix could have been, the whole idea that 'everything is a file' is so powerful that we ended up not believing it and the resulting hacks are all so ugly in comparison. Plan 9 does this so consistently that you can test a new version of the window manager in a window on the currently running window manager.
For fun I ran the Bell-Core window manager inside a Plan 9 window at some point just to see if it could be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManaGeR
And yes, you could do it, and fairly easily so. This kind of structural coherency is a great feature for an operating system to have.
>the whole idea that 'everything is a file' is so powerful that we ended up not believing it and the resulting hacks are all so ugly in comparison
I agree. People find it hard to wrap their heads around simple and uniform interfaces. They can’t simplify what they want to accomplish, they want to inflict their complexity on everyone.
Simplifying is maybe emotionally deflating, it makes for a less satisfying solution. Career-wise, it is better to propose complex solutions that take lots of manpower. That’s how you climb the ladder.
Why Plan 9 seems to be 'much' more popular/discussed and not Inferno?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system)
> Applications are written in the Limbo programming language, which provides static typing, garbage collection, and built-in concurrency features. Limbo code is compiled into architecture-independent bytecode executed by the Dis virtual machine. The Dis VM can interpret the bytecode or compile it just-in-time into native instructions, allowing applications to run consistently across different platforms.
Can you port existing software to it, or do you have to rewrite everything in Limbo? Because if you do, that right there almost completely kills it IMO.
As someone who tried to use both, there is little you can do with it in practice when compared to Plan9. There was a _great_ baremetal port of Inferno to the Raspberry Pi, but there aren't any modern versions for other SBCs.
Plan9port is available in a lot of package managers. I've been using mk and rc for my build/task running and scripting needs for a while and have been very happy. rc in particular is such a concise scripting language that shaves off all the rough edges of sh (not to mention bash), I rarely need to reference docs.
Why did they put installation script in INSTALL INSTEAD OF install.sh? Most other repositories i have seen put human-readable instructions in there.
There is likely some history there. Plan 9 is the only OS I know of that bakes in all of the documentation and there is a heavily ingrained culture of 'RTFM!' in the community.
The interesting part is the two references to a person who has long since passed, Uriel. The make file and configure files both print "read the README file." I am sure he complained that most people would blindly unpack the source and immediately run make or configure without ever reading anything. It could be a way to force people to RTFM. But that is just my opinion. If you really want an answer, drop an email to the 9fans mailing list and ask. It's still active.
Pretty common in all UNIXes, which is why projects like GNU and Linux even had a starting point what to compare themselves to.
IBM systems have the famous Red Books, but ok it isn't included.
Windows before the Internet days, when the SDK came in CD, having a MSDN subscription meant receiving a box with all documentation from Microsoft.
Inferno as Plan 9's successor also included all documentation.
Niklaus Wirth OSes for Modula-2 and Oberon, had the OS documentation as hypertext.
All Xerox PARC OSes, across Smalltalk, Interlisp-D and Mesa/Cedar had online help with the system documentation.
It's plan9. It is supposed to be at once weird and somewhat fitting.
* plan9 PORT sigh the clue is in the name
Yes, it's a plan9 port; why would you expect it to change any more than is absolutely needed to get it running on the new host OS?
I don't think an INSTALL script with that name is common among Plan 9 software.
Also, this project is designed for operating systems other than Plan 9.