Re:The Plan 9 Effect or why you should not fix it if it isn'...
by IshKebab on Saturday May 28, 2016 @03:40PM
(#11793093)
> There are a lot of things about Plan 9 that really aren't that good in 2016.
Well yeah, that's because Plan 9 wasn't written in 2016 and hasn't been kept up to date. I don't think anyone claimed otherwise.
It doesn't invalidate the point that people do want a simpler OS that isn't as crazy and hodge-podgey as Unix. They just don't want it as much as they want compatibility with old software.
Think how hard a sell Windows 10 would be if it didn't run software written for Windows 7. Literally no-one would use it. That doesn't mean it isn't better.
Re:The Plan 9 Effect or why you should not fix it if it isn'...
by f2f on Saturday May 28, 2016 @03:51PM
(#11793139)
> The windowing system is not a compositing window manager
8½ perhaps wasn't, but Rio is a compositing window manager.
Re:The Plan 9 Effect or why you should not fix it if it isn'...
by pcwalton on Saturday May 28, 2016 @06:58PM
(#11793950)
Not in the modern sense of compositing GPU buffers.
Re:The Plan 9 Effect or why you should not fix it if it isn'...
by mveety on Sunday May 29, 2016 @01:53AM
(#11795023)
Since when does the window manager have to use the gpu to be considered a compositing window manager?
Re:The Plan 9 Effect or why you should not fix it if it isn'...
by pcwalton on Sunday May 29, 2016 @11:38AM
(#11796709)
This has devolved into a fairly pointless semantic debate. What I'm saying is that rio is not built around compositing hardware surfaces, like all modern windowing systems (DWM, Mac CGS, Wayland) are. A windowing system that is not architected this way will always have inferior performance, and retrofitting the proper design onto an existing one based on memory buffers and drawing commands is difficult to do (see all the problems with XCOMPOSITE).
There are a lot of things about Plan 9 that really aren't that good in 2016. The compiler, for example, lacks a modern optimization pipeline and generates code that is unacceptably slow by modern standards. The windowing system is not a compositing window manager; it's a '90s design through and through and cannot perform as well as solutions like Wayland (that are arguably simpler). The browser doesn't support dynamic changes and would have to be rearchitected to support anything more than simple pages with acceptable performance.
None of this is meant to bash the great work that the Plan 9 team did while at Bell Labs/Lucent, mind you. With the team they had they did a really great job, and they're all top-notch developers. I only want to counter the notion that Plan 9 is all around a technically better OS than the ones we use today. It isn't.
As sad as it sounds, most complexity exists for a reason. There is a good amount of cruft that could be dropped if not for backwards compatibility, but when e.g. compilers are concerned, you depend on that complexity for performance.