Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead of dynamic ones? (2004)(9p.io)

  > how come mothra bit the dust?
  I wrote it.  It was not in good condition when I left
  Bell Labs.  Understantably, nobody else wanted anything
  to do with it, so it died.

  Its biggest shortcoming (other than its general
  internal hidousness) was that its document imaging
  model was fixed before <table> entered the picture.
  Deep down it believed that documents were running text
  with embedded line-breaks and indent changes, meaning
  there's no good way to get tables or frames to work.

  Also, if your browser doesn't closely match Netscape
  and Microsoft, people will believe that it just doesn't
  work, regardless of how good a job you do of meeting the
  published specifications.

  On the other hand, I still think its idea of how to handle
  navigation (mostly the panel with an LRU list of pages 
  visited) was better than anything else I've seen.

  Writing a web browser is a fool's errand.  The 
  specification was changing faster than I could type, and 
  still is.

  > Surely somebody must be trying to port Mozilla to Plan 9?

  While that would be better than no browser at all, Mozilla 
  is just the sort of stand-alone monolith that we're trying 
  to argue against. And of course, everyone else in the 
  world is trying to turn their system into a giant web 
  browser. I'd rather see web access be one aspect of a 
  system in which the pieces work in concert.

  -rob

    #include <stdio.h>

    int main(void)
    {
      puts("hello world\n");
      return 0;
    }