I also feel that InfernoOS deserves better recognition and interest.

From Inferno OS page [1] :

>>>..As this is part of the underlying system, all applications gain these benefits automatically. 9P runs over various transport protocols including TCP/IP.

9P was originally developed for use with Plan 9 from Bell Labs. A simplified subset called Styx was used in Inferno for a few years, but now Inferno's protocol is exactly the same as 9P. Some manual pages and older papers still refer to Styx. <<<

I think major constraint (or advantage, depending how you look at it) -- is that you can only use GO-like programming language, Limbo, to develop for it. No other language runtime is supported.

[1] http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/design.html

I've always enjoyed your opinion on alternative operating systems and languages. I love plan9, I wore my thesis in it, but that was based on the knowledge that other distributed operating systems existed at the time, amoeba being the most fun to learn about. Now it's a wasteland... And I really would prefer to explore.

I think better or worse isn't the important theme here. It's that we've lost variety...

Distributed computing is being reborn in the crypto currency sphere.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we will have something akin to plan9 or inferno composed from nodes on these networks?

After all, at some point everything old becomes new again when it comes to computer technology.

>Perhaps in 20 or 30 years we will have something akin to plan9 or inferno composed from nodes on these networks?

Seems highly likely to occur within less than a decade. Tops. Just not on the blockchain. Likely something not-blockchain, e.g. https://ecsa.io/ (which /interacts/ with the blockchain, but isn't blockchain based.)

People massively underestimate just how fast technology progresses at the moment.

While the blockchain is clearly a distributed system, in a very real sense it is the antithesis of classical meanings of distributed computing in the sense that cryptocurrencies are designed to escalate their level of difficulty so as to fend off being accelerated by distributed processing, the exact opposite of most distributed systems that are designed to explicitly harness, or at least collaterally benefit from, parallelism.

What does it mean for an operating system to run on the blockchain?

Nothing. It is an impossible construct. The blockchain is a (very limited) distributed immutable storage system. It cannot run anything, and participating in a blockchain requires a minimal operating system to be present (storage/network/process management).

Operating System: - the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals.

Blockchain: - A decentralized and distributed digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the collusion of the network.

Is this supposed to answer my question?

No, just preface into their intended functions.

Edit: One might question what the ledger tracks in terms of operating toward user needs as opposed to financial activity.

I'm not a huge fan of Limbo and most of the other changes aren't very compelling imo. I think plan9 is better.

I just went and read the wiki page to try and evaluate your statement, but I still don't get it. I mean, I like the distributing computing concept, but what makes Plan 9 especially interesting?

Compared to Inferno? It's simpler. I think plan9 is great example of getting a lot done with a very simple design.

Well, comparing Inferno and Plan9 only makes sense to a certain degree. Inferno includes a VM, and it was designed to compete with Java, whereas Plan9 was conceived as a replacement (or evolution) of UNIX.

It makes some sense from the point of view that Inferno contains some design decisions that were initially planed for Plan 9 and had to be thrown away due to implementation issues, like Alef then reborned as Limbo.

In any case the C APIs are the same as Plan 9 anyway.

Sorry, I meant plan9 in general.

The kernel is simple and sanely designed and interfacing with it is done through the filesystem in, again, a very simple and sane way. Your displays are configured by a simple <10 line shell script at boot time that writes plaintext to a device file, rather than a gargantuan graphics stack that's controlled with binary device files and ioctls. Filesystem namespaces are lovely, and make the filesystem cleanly organized and customized to the logged in user's needs and desires. I have a little script that clears my current terminal window: `echo -n "" > /dev/text`. The libc is small and focused (non-POSIX), and there are only a handful of syscalls. The process model is really sane and straightforward as well. Playing an mp3 file is `mp3dec < file.mp3 > /dev/audio`.

To open a TCP connection, you use the dial(3) function, which basically does the following: write "tcp!name!port" to /net/cs and read out "1.2.3.4!80" (/net/cs resolves the name), then you write "connect 1.2.3.4" to /net/tcp/clone and read out a connection ID, and open /net/tcp/:id/data which is now a full-duplex TCP stream.

There's this emphasis on simple, sane ways of fulfilling tasks on plan9 that permeates the whole system. It's beautiful.

Actually, I can kinda see the advantages there - but isn't insanity just a natural result of trying to work in lots of contexts?

I mean, consider something like vim. It's a nice program, well designed - but undoubtedly insane, just because it's supposed to work in every imaginable context.

It strikes me that plan9 wouldn't be immune to the same phenomenon.

It is all about keeping the OS sane to give the users and applications a chance to be sane, rather than causing madness from the get-go.

However, if the system permits arbitrary applications to be executed (which plan9 does), then it cannot be shielded from madness. Proof: plan9 has a POSIX compatibility layer (APE), a vt100 terminal emulator and a vim port. It even has an aging full-on linux emulator. I think it could run a really old version of Firefox, but the memory is vague. People swear by Mothra these days anyway.

It also has a virtual machine system down served by vmx(1) http://man.cat-v.org/9front/1/vmx.

That's new. Haven't used 9front for a while.