On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, errno <er...@cox.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 04:40:50 PM Jacob Todd wrote: > > Writing/porting web stuff to plan 9 will be hard. Writing > > something that accesses plan 9 from the web will be less > > hard. > > > > Correct; but also somewhat ancillary to the general areas > of concern: > > > Is it really all that often when a Plan 9 user is in the precarious > > situation of needing to access his plan9 system from some > > other person's/party's pc or laptop? >
Instead of a "traditional web server platform" for web applications this could be an alternative deployment target. Use a grid of Plan 9 machines with a "native" interface in JavaScript. JavaScript front end to a distributed Go application on Plan 9 sounds like a potentially useful medium to work in. > > > Ok, who slipped me the Cr@zy Pills? Just a couple weeks ago, > > javascript and web technologies were THE DEVIL INCARNATE... > > > I realize I'm being unimaginative, but I'm having a very difficult > > time conceiving what sort of plan 9 application could possibly > > be appealing to non-plan 9 users. > The one that doesn't look like a Plan 9 application, but instead looks like a useful application? I don't think Linux was appealing to very many people before it was obvious one could host a cheap http server on it either. > > > The web is the key. > > That's part of it likely, but I think we have to be able to imagine how Plan 9 makes something easier for someone with a web browser. Technology in search of a use is almost always the wrong way to go, but I think it did work out in Linux's case. Dave > Cheers > > >
