July 27th, 2024

Plan 9 Is a Uniquely Complete Operating System

Plan 9 is a complete operating system with all necessary software included, offering a consistent design and educational resource, though it may lack features compared to mainstream systems.

Read original articleLink Icon
CuriositySkepticismNostalgia
Plan 9 Is a Uniquely Complete Operating System

Plan 9 is distinguished as a complete operating system because it includes all necessary software in its base installation, such as compilers, graphical environments, and various utilities. This contrasts with Linux distributions, which often vary widely in their default software choices, creating a complex environment for developers. BSD systems, while more cohesive than Linux, still share a significant amount of code and libraries, leading to inconsistencies. Plan 9's monolithic design means that everything is contained within a single repository, ensuring a consistent design and eliminating the need for extensive configuration testing. This encourages the development of new software tailored to Plan 9's unique style, although it may result in less feature-rich implementations compared to mainstream software. The system's isolation from broader software trends can be a drawback, contributing to its perception as a niche or hobbyist platform. However, this design also makes Plan 9 an excellent educational resource, providing a sandbox for learning about operating systems. Notable independent implementations for Plan 9 include tools like SSH, Git, and various input method editors. For those interested in exploring Plan 9, the 9front ISO is readily available for download, offering a compact package that encompasses the entire system. Overall, Plan 9's unique approach to operating system design and software integration sets it apart from other systems, making it a valuable resource for experimentation and learning.

Related

30 years later, FreeDOS is still keeping the dream of the command prompt alive

30 years later, FreeDOS is still keeping the dream of the command prompt alive

FreeDOS, a 30-year-old public domain DOS version, persists for legacy applications on modern systems. Creator Jim Hall notes sustained interest despite uncertain future, emphasizing its significance in MS-DOS-compatible systems.

Show HN: Windows 9X – Windows 98 but all of the programs are AI generated

Show HN: Windows 9X – Windows 98 but all of the programs are AI generated

A simulated Windows 9X OS with AI-generated applications using SawyerSoft IntelliOptimize™ technology offers a nostalgic 1990s experience. Users sign in with Google, create apps on demand, and undergo a detailed setup process.

Lennart Poettering: Fitting Everything Together

Lennart Poettering: Fitting Everything Together

The blog post explores integrating systemd components for Linux OS development, emphasizing hermetic /usr/ design, image-based OS with security features, self-updating systems, and community-driven desktop OS with advanced security measures.

Fusion OS: Writing an OS in Nim

Fusion OS: Writing an OS in Nim

The author details creating Fusion OS in Nim, emphasizing features like deterministic memory management and capability-based security. The project explores novel concepts and diverges from Unix conventions, focusing on experimentation.

I Like NetBSD, or Why Portability Matters

I Like NetBSD, or Why Portability Matters

NetBSD, founded in 1993, prioritizes portability and simplicity following Unix philosophy. It supports various hardware platforms, emphasizes code quality, and fosters a community valuing system longevity and older tech. NetBSD promotes sustainability and efficiency in software design, offering a cozy, minimal setup for exploration and learning.

AI: What people are saying
The comments on Plan 9 reflect a mix of admiration and criticism regarding its design and functionality.
  • Plan 9 is recognized for its innovative filesystem capabilities, particularly in cross-platform integration with Windows.
  • Users express frustration over its lack of features compared to mainstream operating systems, viewing it as a minimal viable product.
  • Some find the aesthetics of Plan 9 unappealing, suggesting it could benefit from design inspiration from other operating systems.
  • There are discussions about the challenges of developing applications for Plan 9, questioning the accessibility for independent developers.
  • Historical context is provided, noting Plan 9's influence on later projects like Inferno and its relevance in systems software research.
Link Icon 15 comments
By @jazzyjackson - 6 months
For the uninitiated, Plan 9 lives on as the filesystem network interface that allows Windows and Windows Subsystem for Linux cross-platform access to your C drive. Via "https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2019/06/01/wsl-access-to-li...":

    Plan 9’s filesystem is a very simple network filesystem protocol to share files between systems. They are specifically using 9P2000.L.
    They considered using Samba and SMB instead but can’t rely on Samba being installed and usable in the Linux guest OS and didn’t want to ship it because Samba is GPL licensed.
    They picked Plan 9 because it’s much simpler to implement. Also Microsoft already had Plan 9 server code for some other Linux container project they’d done.
    The \\wsl$\ path is handled in the Windows system by the MUP, an existing hook for network-like filesystems. They added a new one for Plan 9.
    The $ is in the name so that it can’t be confused with a computer whose hostname is wsl.
    The Plan 9 server in Linux communicates with the Windows Plan 9 client via a Unix socket. (Windows supports Unix sockets; who knew?)
    Windows can access your Linux files even if no Linux is instance is running. There’s a new Windows service called LXSManagerUser that mediates user identity and permissions.
By @rcarmo - 6 months
Plan9 is one of those things I go back to every Summer and that is somewhere between completely mind-blowing (check out the GIF at https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2020/09/02/1900 to see how fast it boots in real-time on a single-core Pi) and almost completely unfit for purpose because it just doesn’t integrate well (or easily enough) with modern systems (I also considered using it for a writing “appliance” - https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2023/09/22/1230 - but syncing data off it was a blocker, and three-button mouse chording GUIs are just not a thing I want to deal with).

One of the “stupid” ideas I have in my back-burner is to rewrite rio so that it works like Mac OS 7 (the platinum look with window shading), which in my mind was always a very sane and efficient way to manage windows — but time is not on my side…

I have one of my usual lists of resources for it on https://taoofmac.com/space/os/plan9 - comment here if it’s missing anything you particularly like.

By @kccqzy - 6 months
> The Plan 9 implementations tend to not be as feature rich as the proper upstream variants.

This is IMO the biggest drawback. Why wouldn't any user want the software to be feature rich? In fact, looking at Plan 9, I often feel that the provided software is just a MVP.

By @readmemyrights - 6 months
I closely studied plan 9 many times, I unfortunately can't use it because of accessibility issues but from what I read and heard it feels more like a time capsule from the 90s, which is ironic considering it was meant to be a future path for os research. And even in the 90s there were developments in unix that the labs seemingly completely ignored, like DJB's daemon supervision.

To talk about the article itself, the only reason plan 9 can achieve such a design is because it's developed and used by the same small group of people. If linux is a bazaar and BSDs are cathedrals, then 9front is a monastery's citadel. Another thing that isn't mentioned is that both linux and BSD (and pretty much anything based on posix) has a lot of third party software that would be hard to maintain along with the rest of the system, if the monks even include it to begin with. And that software could include something like jq which a lot of software depends on and would love to just assume it's there.

And really, what more does someone get from something like this over, say, having a more or less formal standard on what a true plan9 system includes and waving it in someone's face when they choose to ignore it? This is pretty much what modern unices do and it works out great in cases when it's actually important. Most people don't care what commit your system is built from as long as it works as their programs expect it to.

By @GianFabien - 6 months
I've played with Plan9 several times, but never used it seriously. The aesthetics that puts me off. Would have been great if they had taken guidance from BeOS / Haiku-OS for the look and feel. Heck, even Windows 95 would have been an improvement.
By @tylerchilds - 6 months
By @zokier - 6 months
The author is putting "upstream" on some weird pedestal. The whole point of foss is that any upstreams have very limited privileges compared to downstreams.

> Put in another way, if someone wanted the ability to touch every line of code (in the upstream sense), they would have to be a member of some non trivial amount of communities.

On a typical distro you can just download sources and start hacking, you don't need to be member of any community.

While something like Debian might not be monorepo in the strictest sense, on a conceptual level it is very close. They still have all the sources under their control and are not dependent on anything outside. They are at full liberty to accept or reject any patches regardless of where they come from, from "upstream" or "downstream".

This idea that distros are actually independent full-featured operating systems is an idea that I think is getting forgotten way too often. Distros are (or rather can be) much more than mere repackaging of upstream software.

By @tbrownaw - 6 months
So is there something (social or technical) that makes it tricky to independently provide apps for plan 9, or is it just that the only people who care already have commit access?
By @teleforce - 6 months
Fun facts, the unpopularity of Plan 9 compared to Unix/Linux is what motivated Rob Pike writing the now infamous article Systems Software Research is Irrelevant (2000) [pdf]:

[1] Systems Software Research is Irrelevant (2000) [PDF]:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29709807

By @lagniappe - 6 months
The year of the 9 desktop cometh!
By @pjmlp - 6 months
Superceded by Inferno as follow up project, where Limbo took the role of the abandoned Alef language for Plan 9.

I always have the impression the discussion stops on a gas station the middle of the road, instead of on the destination.

By @nopoolontheroof - 6 months
I have a strong interest in different OS designs, and Plan 9 is one of the more interesting one. Having said that, it's only place is in a VM - it's not really cut out for everyday use. Pretty sure the people using it as such are doing so just to be 'different' - like BeOS back in the day.
By @revskill - 6 months
By @pxmpxm - 6 months
Plan9 is the ycN equivalent of https://xkcd.com/739/