[HN Gopher] Plan 9 from User Space
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Plan 9 from User Space
        
       Author : welovebunnies
       Score  : 63 points
       Date   : 2025-09-28 14:27 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (github.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
        
       | kotenok2000 wrote:
       | Why did they put installation script in INSTALL INSTEAD OF
       | install.sh? Most other repositories i have seen put human-
       | readable instructions in there.
        
         | lstodd wrote:
         | It's plan9. It is supposed to be at once weird and somewhat
         | fitting.
        
           | throwaway2fd82 wrote:
           | I don't think an INSTALL script with that name is common
           | among Plan 9 software.
           | 
           | Also, this project is designed for operating systems other
           | than Plan 9.
        
           | opless wrote:
           | * plan9 PORT _sigh_ the clue is in the name
        
             | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
             | Yes, it's a _plan9_ port; why would you expect it to change
             | any more than is absolutely needed to get it running on the
             | new host OS?
        
         | MisterTea wrote:
         | There is likely some history there. Plan 9 is the only OS I
         | know of that bakes in all of the documentation and there is a
         | heavily ingrained culture of 'RTFM!' in the community.
         | 
         | The interesting part is the two references to a person who has
         | long since passed, Uriel. The make file and configure files
         | both print "read the README file." I am sure he complained that
         | most people would blindly unpack the source and immediately run
         | make or configure without ever reading anything. It could be a
         | way to force people to RTFM. But that is just my opinion. If
         | you really want an answer, drop an email to the 9fans mailing
         | list and ask. It's still active.
        
           | pjmlp wrote:
           | Pretty common in all UNIXes, which is why projects like GNU
           | and Linux even had a starting point what to compare
           | themselves to.
           | 
           | IBM systems have the famous Red Books, but ok it isn't
           | included.
           | 
           | Windows before the Internet days, when the SDK came in CD,
           | having a MSDN subscription meant receiving a box with all
           | documentation from Microsoft.
           | 
           | Inferno as Plan 9's successor also included all
           | documentation.
           | 
           | Niklaus Wirth OSes for Modula-2 and Oberon, had the OS
           | documentation as hypertext.
           | 
           | All Xerox PARC OSes, across Smalltalk, Interlisp-D and
           | Mesa/Cedar had online help with the system documentation.
        
       | packetlost wrote:
       | Plan9port is available in a lot of package managers. I've been
       | using mk and rc for my build/task running and scripting needs for
       | a while and have been very happy. rc in particular is such a
       | concise scripting language that shaves off all the rough edges of
       | sh (not to mention bash), I rarely need to reference docs.
        
       | jacquesm wrote:
       | Plan 9 is amazing. I just released my own ancient little
       | operating system (see 'Show HN') which took some of Plan 9's
       | ideas. Plan 9 was a massive inspiration at the time that it was
       | released, I had it running on a really small machine for the time
       | and I love the underlying concepts. It is a real pity that it
       | never really took off.
       | 
       | Plan 9 is what Unix could have been, the whole idea that
       | 'everything is a file' is so powerful that we ended up not
       | believing it and the resulting hacks are all so ugly in
       | comparison. Plan 9 does this so consistently that you can test a
       | new version of the window manager in a window on the currently
       | running window manager.
       | 
       | For fun I ran the Bell-Core window manager inside a Plan 9 window
       | at some point just to see if it could be done.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManaGeR
       | 
       | And yes, you could do it, and fairly easily so. This kind of
       | structural coherency is a great feature for an operating system
       | to have.
        
         | Isamu wrote:
         | >the whole idea that 'everything is a file' is so powerful that
         | we ended up not believing it and the resulting hacks are all so
         | ugly in comparison
         | 
         | I agree. People find it hard to wrap their heads around simple
         | and uniform interfaces. They can't simplify what they want to
         | accomplish, they want to inflict their complexity on everyone.
         | 
         | Simplifying is maybe emotionally deflating, it makes for a less
         | satisfying solution. Career-wise, it is better to propose
         | complex solutions that take lots of manpower. That's how you
         | climb the ladder.
        
           | calvinmorrison wrote:
           | yet - you still have to learn opaque crap. example
           | 
           | echo kill > /proc/123/ctl
           | 
           | Sure, that works if you know kill, but you cannot inspect ctl
           | and understand the interface, its a write interface. so you
           | can certainly RTFM, read the dev proc list, etc. it's not
           | discoverable
           | 
           | so like /proc/net/stat or whatever, it means nothing to me...
           | its gonna just be a TSV of bytes that mean something, unless
           | you know it.
           | 
           | so for all the simplicity, it's what i would call, not very
           | usable.
        
         | Ferret7446 wrote:
         | "everything is a file" is unix's equivalent of the Greek's
         | "everything is a basic geometric shape" and epicycles, or heck,
         | "everything is an object". These kinds of reductions are naive
         | and result in kludges of representation.
        
           | poncho_romero wrote:
           | By that logic isn't this argument equally reductive?
        
       | tiu wrote:
       | Why Plan 9 seems to be 'much' more popular/discussed and not
       | Inferno?
       | 
       | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system)
        
         | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
         | > Applications are written in the Limbo programming language,
         | which provides static typing, garbage collection, and built-in
         | concurrency features. Limbo code is compiled into architecture-
         | independent bytecode executed by the Dis virtual machine. The
         | Dis VM can interpret the bytecode or compile it just-in-time
         | into native instructions, allowing applications to run
         | consistently across different platforms.
         | 
         | Can you port existing software to it, or do you have to rewrite
         | everything in Limbo? Because if you do, that right there almost
         | completely kills it IMO.
        
         | rcarmo wrote:
         | As someone who tried to use both, there is little you can do
         | with it in practice when compared to Plan9. There was a _great_
         | baremetal port of Inferno to the Raspberry Pi, but there aren't
         | any modern versions for other SBCs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-28 23:01 UTC)