Hi all,
As a professional user I think that Plan9 could be better than *nix for a
large class of industrial - not time critical - applications but in
Italy nobody
use it, except of no more than a dozen of fans. The University doesn't
know it at all.
Of course, this is what I see. I would be ha
> without
> guarantees about
> its longevity, it could be a wrong choice.
>
> How can I reply to this objection ?
i think for most companies the issues are (a) lack of people with
skills to build and maintain plan9 systems and (b) most IT departments
are used to -- and seek -- point solutions th
Plan 9 is an open source project; as such, you get at least
the same baseline "guarantees" about its longevity as every
open source project enjoys: as long as someone's interested,
work can continue.
there are still Bell Labs staff who work on Plan 9, although i
don't believe they're working on it
> As a professional user I think that Plan9 could be better than *nix for a
> large class of industrial - not time critical - applications but in
> Italy nobody use it, except of no more than a dozen of fans. The University
> doesn't
> know it at all. Of course, this is what I see. I would be h
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
> Plan 9 is an open source project
The Plan 9 code base (at least the released parts of it) is open source.
Plan 9 is *not* an open source project, it can hardly be called a
project even: There is no release management, there is no developmen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Uriel wrote:
> Plan 9 is *not* an open source project, it can hardly be called a
> project even: There is no release management, there is no development
> process, there is no way to know what anyone is working on, no way to
> have any idea of what changes and feat
There are thousands of devices shipped with Microsoft Windows CE prior
to version 4 (.NET). For these devices MS never offered patches even
if these versions had lots of bugs, nor even standard C libraries
(thank God there is wcecompat). And there are lot of projects that
reached 10+ years (with wo
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM, dorin bumbu wrote:
> There are thousands of devices shipped with Microsoft Windows CE prior
> to version 4 (.NET). For these devices MS never offered patches even
> if these versions had lots of bugs, nor even standard C libraries
> (thank God there is wcecompat). A
dorin bumbu wrote:
There are thousands of devices shipped with Microsoft Windows CE prior
to version 4 (.NET). For these devices MS never offered patches even
if these versions had lots of bugs, nor even standard C libraries
(thank God there is wcecompat). And there are lot of projects that
reach
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Uriel wrote:
>
>> Plan 9 is *not* an open source project
>
I once attended a talk where a statement was made about open source
projects being defined by their ability to fork in non-destructive
manners as a sort of evolutionary response. Plan 9's source code is
av
On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:29:29 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> The secret plan 9 super secret
> society fork is yet another evolution, actually primarily motivated by
> bitter, disruptive, and ultimately destructive community members.
>
Curiosity has just got the best of me.
Can you shed a little
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Corey wrote:
> On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:29:29 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>> The secret plan 9 super secret
>> society fork is yet another evolution, actually primarily motivated by
>> bitter, disruptive, and ultimately destructive community members.
>>
>
> Curios
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Corey wrote:
>> On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:29:29 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>>> The secret plan 9 super secret
>>> society fork is yet another evolution, actually primarily motivated by
>>> bitter, disru
On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:50:39 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Corey wrote:
> > On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:29:29 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> >> The secret plan 9 super secret
> >> society fork is yet another evolution, actually primarily motivated by
> >> bitter,
Anthony Sorace wrote:
i, at least, would be interested to know more about what
the specific concerns are. that is, is it about availability,
future evolution, commercial support, or something else?
anthony
Mainly availability.
In the past I had some difficulties when I suggested to use FreeB
On Saturday 18 July 2009 10:59:20 ron minnich wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Uriel wrote:
> > So you are on your own, you can take the code (while the site happens
> > to be up, or from a mirror), do whatever you like with it, but that is
> > all there is and all anyone can count on.
>
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:40:14 +0200
Adriano Verardo wrote:
> Unbelievable but true, a driver (or a patch to a driver or whatever
> else) done by an
> italian is not considered as good as the stuff from the original site.
> It is a psychological problem I have often to face with.
Open-source
it is so difficult to 'fork' the project that it took me less than 10
minutes to turn the kernel sources into a hg repository.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Uriel wrote:
>
>> Plan 9 is *not* an open source project, it can hardly be called a
18 matches
Mail list logo
