The fact the UTF-8 was first "implemented" on Plan 9 has nothing to do with
Plan 9's funtionality as an OS. Similarly, the fact that Windows is "still"
the best platform if you need to do word processing in many languages has
nothing to do with its comparatively low performance with many
applications--an important OS functionality it lacks.

FreeBSD's very good process scheduling, which manifests to a user like me
in not having to worry about a non-responsive system in case a process is
poorly performing, "is" an OS funtionality.

If the availability of UTF-8 is an advantage, the absence of a single
Unicode font in the system useful for non-Latin languages is a very strong
disadvantage. UTF-8 in an English-only "user" paradigm is only
extravagance. I even doubt there's a "simple" way of inputting, say, Hebrew
or Arabic in Plan 9. It'll be kind of you to clarify that point for me if
I'm mistaken.

it seems like you are avoiding the point on purpose.

i don't think you can pick up a kernel with tweezers and make
a bunch of abstract statements about it. and so i think the fact
that unicode may be used anywhere a character is expected in plan9
does have a lot to do with the system's functionality.

what do you base this claim on? i'm pretty sure that the fonts
distributed with the system are enough to support japanese, greek,
and russian, to name only the ones i can think of quickly

and i am certain that code2000 and cyberbit which are available
on sources provide some of the best unicode coverage for free fonts.
they're not great fonts nor do they have total coverage, but no
fonts do.

The fact the UTF-8 was first "implemented" on Plan 9 has nothing
to do with Plan 9's funtionality as an OS.
Not true. The ability to adapt the system quickly in response to a
changing standards situation made a critical difference in having
UTF-8 rather than a weaker proposal accepted by X/Open and hence ISO.

The question is what new function Plan 9, as an OS, defines for
the end user.
Plan 9 is not for end users. Plan 9 is for programmers.

-rob

// Systems research? Did you actually "research" how a normal user used their
// computer? Did you even try to guess how a normal user used their system?
// Did you do that and end up with a technical manual whose prime example for
// backup strategy involves a "Jukebox?"

You clearly have a very particular, narrow idea of what a "user" is, and a very
muddy idea of how research works. Obviously getting an optical jukebox isn't
practical for Joe Public sitting in his flat, but it makes great sense for lots of
users in larger settings. Perhaps more to the point, experience with fs(4) led
pretty directly to the current construction of fs(3), fossil(4), and venti(6) - all of
which are much more suitabe for Joe.

Put another way: the topic under research wasn't "how do we provide the
backup functionality people are asking for?", but "how would having daily
dumps change the way you work? would that be useful?". It's a less product-
oriented set of questions, but produces more fundamental results.

// Plan 9 seems to be a "niche" OS, as I pointed out before.

That may well be true, or at least that it isn't mainstream and mass-market.
That's never been its objective, and I'm sorry if you wasted your time based
on misunderstanding that.

// UTF-8 in an English-only "user" paradigm is only extravagance.

you've missed my point. most of the dummies books on software try
to explain how to deal with very complex, organically developed
systems that lack any central design idea. the fact that it requires
the reader to admit to being a dummy to buy the book is telling
enough.

Many of the ideas have been/will be applied to other
systems, and that will affects end users as well. It's just that there's
no need to use the same system for doing research and for, say,
browsing the web.

Having said that, but for web browsing, I'm quite
happy using Plan 9 as an end user that mostly writes code, slides, and
docs and reads mail. I mean, I use it not just to modify it. This does not
mean I cannot use others as well.

Federico G. Benavento wrote:

That has a very long beard! Isn`t programming without endusers just like
wanking?

bblochl

I still don't get your point.

And does your "point" include these "For Dummies" books?

1. Alan Simpson - Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition For Dummies
2. Allen Wyatt - Cleaning Windows XP For Dummies
3. Barry Burd - Beginning Programming With Java For Dummies
4. Bill Sempf - Visual Basic 2005 For Dummies.pdf
5. Damon Dean And Andy Cowitt - Macromedia Studio 8 All-In-One Desk
Reference For Dummies
6. Dee-Ann LeBlanc - Linux For Dummies
7. Frederic Jones - Digital Photography, Just The Steps For Dummies
8. Steve Holzner - Ajax For Dummies
9. Kevin Beaver - Hacking For Dummies
10. Janine Warner - Dreamweaver 8 For Dummies

Does Dreamweaver 8 sound like a piece of "very complex," "organically
developed" software, "and" lacking "a central design idea?"

"For Dummies" books are essentially non sequiturs arising from marketing
schemes. RTFM is really the way to go, but you need to have an "incentive,"
a "promise," to RTFM. Obviously, sometimes the incentive is replaced by a
compelling to obey company/university/institution policies.

how is that related to Plan 9 being for programmers?