It should be noted that Plan 9 is far from dead or outdated. The 9front developers have continued to make many improvements to the OS while retaining backwards compatibility. 9legacy offers a set of patches which try to stay closer to the original Bell Labs distribution. There are also other ongoing developments, such as my own Advanced Namespace Tools and a new grid of public 9p services.
Is there a contingent of 9fans doing work on using Plan 9 for DevOps? The fact that doesn't have popular graphical software (or even the same conventions) wouldn't hold it back there. If it's really as well designed and coherent as the praise always makes it seem, it should be an attractive option on the server. So developers can stick with Windows/Mac/Linux on personal machines, and should be deploying to Plan 9 in the cloud, right?
It might make sense in theory, but in practice there are very very few Plan 9 users and developers. Fundamental design quality is never a guarantee of "success" as measured by size of the userbase. If you look at the culture of Plan 9 users, there is also often a somewhat adversarial perspective on standard software. It's a complicated topic, with a lot of weird history involving things like Plan 9 not having a decent open source license for a long time. Once the patterns were established, sociocultural issues outweighed any technical issues. You can imagine an alternate history where things all worked out differently, but at present, Plan 9 is hard to view as a realistic option for any kind of mainstream corporate software work. A lot of us think that is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing, economic incentives and software design quality are often misaligned.
> ...economic incentives and software design quality are often misaligned.
I'm reminded of this note from the README for 3Blue1Brown's `manim`, an animation library for his own use (and thus decidedly not a community project):
"But the tricky part about anything which confers the benefit of originality is that this benefit cannot be easily shared."
Just because a project has an open source license doesn't mean that it has, or should have, open governance.
This also raises an interesting point that I hadn't properly considered before: an open-source project doesn't have to be universally applicable to be useful.
Anyone that's ever built an open-source demo or example project has potentially contributed to someone else a lot, even if they can't directly use that project or have to make modifications to apply it to their situation.
If more people were willing to open up seemingly niche projects like this, it would surely help countless others.
I guess you could call it a hobby as much as anything. It feels more serious than that to me, based on the amount of time and effort I put into it. In addition to developing os-level projects for Plan 9 itself, I write interactive fiction games, which feels to me like a serious artistic pursuit, but most people would put interactive fiction text adventures in the "hobby" category. My brain doesn't really follow the dichotomy of using whether or not something is profit-making for how "important" it is. I understand that is an attitude that is somewhat a measure of personal privilege to not focus that hard on economic issues.
Would you mind sharing a few good intro sources for Plan 9? I’m a small-time Linux contributor, but haven’t delved into any other operating systems. Interactive fiction games are always appreciated too :)
I use 9front mostly because it's a nice place to live. Most of the stuff I do doesn't run on Plan 9, but I to the development on a 9front system. Compared to FreeBSD (I don't have much Linux experience) the system is simpler and easy to write for. The tools are well thought out and simple, plus it has my favourite text editor. I work on 9front entirely because I use it. Not working on it would be like not repairing your home if it breaks because someone else built it. If you have the ability to help make and improve the projects you live in, I really think it's important that you should. This is basically the raison d'être for 9front's existence.
The Linux kernel is maintained by hundreds of contributers and Linus is quite cautious about regressions.
Linux has a mature ecosystem and several flavors and components to choose from.
Plan9, while leagues ahead the *nix design architecturally, has a much smaller ecosystem, no real choice in components, and virtually no enterprise support.
> The Linux kernel is maintained by hundreds of contributers and Linus is quite cautious about regressions.
I just wish similar caution was demonstrated from userspace component maintainers.
> Linux has a mature ecosystem and several flavors and components to choose from.
And certain high ranking userspace maintainers are chomping at the bit to pair the number of flavors and components right down, to ease their own workload.
Almost no chance, because "mainstream" would require a huge amount of software to be written or ported for the operating system that does not currently exist. When it comes to things like multimedia and games and webbrowsers and standard office-suites that account for the vast majority of the average person's software use, Plan 9 is not an option. It is true that 9front has support for running virtual machines now, but I see little reason that the average person would ever choose to be running LibreOffice in a virtual machine inside Plan 9 as their standard way of working.
No it's both a server and a desktop OS. The architecture semi-requires the ability to be both cooked in. In my usecase I have my terminals which are desktops that boot off of my main fileserver.
