Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 May 1999 17:54:21 -0500 (CDT) | From | John Fulmer <> | Subject | Re: Plan-9 is definitely _NOT_ a failure (Re: Ken Thompson interview in IEEE Computer magazine (fwd)) |
| |
Dammit, I wish people would actually quote my remarks in a thread (not you, David).
My reply in THIS thread was that Plan 9 was never a mainstream commercial sucess, and commending on Ken Thompson's use of the phrase "[Linux] will probably not be very suscessful".
I remember a lot of buzz in the mid 90's that Plan 9 was designed to be the next "Unix killer", and then the project got pulled. If you go through Bell Labs web pages on Plan 9, there is a comment that there is no on at Bell working on it, instead most members got pulled to Inferno, or other projects.
AND I stated that my impression was that technically, Plan 9 was a very good and elegant system. It just didn't go anywhere.
jf
On Thu, 6 May 1999, David Miller wrote:
> Isn't plan9 what the AT&T ES switches run for an OS? I'd certainly not > consider it a failure under those circumstances. > > And to call plan9 a failure because it hasn't achieved a widely accepted > position in the computer comunity is simply ignorant:( > > --- David Miller >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |