|
|
|
|
|
by mycroftiv
3065 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.