lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> Utility computing is perfectly fine as long as it is balanced by
> original development, but it is poisonous if it preclueds any original
> participation. Open Source is one form of rebellion, but it lacks the
> robust foundations of sound program development. Plan 9 is a much
> smaller, better designed approach. I'm sure we won't see Plan 9
O yeahhh umm yeah like r u 3l3t3? Err uh yeah or is it 1337?
> contenders and I'm sorry to see that happening, but that is the nature
> of the beast. Had Plan 9 caught the imagination of the "masses", it
> would have grown the same tumors as Linux, and that would have
> defeated its nature.
>
> Think Pascal: it is hardly the language of choice today, but the
> principles it enshrines have totally altered the programming language
> landscape. C is the utility version, and C++ and Java its obvious
Surrrrre uhhh yeah whatever you say.... Or was it Algol?
> offsprings. Alef has been abandoned and Limbo remains a very
> specialised language, but they will also leave their mark.
So does a dog pissing on a fire hydrant.
> So, I think this dicussion is based on a premise whose value is purely
> emotional: we'd all be more comfortable if Plan 9 was widely accepted,
> but there is no intellectual reason for it to be so. Rob Pike says
> the same thing in a nutshell, but in reality it is the philosophy
> behind Plan 9 that needs spreading: careful design, generalised
> objects, simplicity rather than bulk, etc. Not Rio or Acme, Fossil or
> Venti, but the environment in which they can thrive. The environment
> in which Mozilla is difficult to create so that simpler solutions can
> be sought.
Mozilla didn't create the web. The web created Mozilla.
