Every paragraph is still wrong. You are, in the typical way of people whose belief systems are based on faith instead of facts and evidence, accusing me of what you are doing.

> You've gone off the rails because you can't respond to the fact

It is not a fact. You are wrong. This claim is false.

> that things like the distributed design are bigger

It is smaller.

> and more complex

It is simpler.

> and over engineered than necessary.

Therefore it is not over-engineered.

> And you also can't respond to the fact that your claim the system as a whole is smaller or simpler is meaningless because you're comparing a toy to real systems.

I am not. I am not comparing Plan 9 to anything other than things that compare in scope to Plan 9, in other words, previous and subsequent UNIX-type OSes.

You are.

And you're wrong.

> You were also unable to furnish me with any examples of what it brought to systems design.

I did not, because I did not need to. I am not making that claim. You are. This is called a "straw man argument", where you attempt to rebut me by claiming I said something I didn't say and then attempt to prove that wrong.

I didn't claim it was a success, I didn't claim it was influential, and I didn't claim it influenced anything else.

Therefore, your attack fails, because it doesn't matter if you disagree with things I didn't say.

> to try to claim it's not over-engineered for some weird reason.

"That is not what the phrase `over-engineering' means" is not a weird reason.

> Whatever you call it does not change what it is!

Again, it is what you are calling it that I am debating.

You are just shouting angrily, as far as I can see, because you are unable and unwilling to engage with what I am actually saying.

> And that thing is an unremarkable

The only way to refute this would be to give examples of rival systems that did so much in so little code.

I am not aware of any, and you have given none.

That makes it remarkable.

> and un-notable system

It is the last system from the group of developers who built the most successful OS that the world has ever known. That in itself is very notable, even if it's a flop.

> that grew overly complicated features

It is small and simple in design. That is not "overly complicated".

It has few features.

This is your core argument and what you claim is not true.

> that were not necessary because the designers fixated on or misidentified certain features from their fist successful system,

That may be true. I am not disputing that.

The increasing number of typos reinforces my impression that you are angrily pounding away at your keyboard, angrily arguing with things you only imagined I said.

You are shouting at yourself.

> and failed to gain adoption or influence

It did. This is true. I am not arguing that.

> in part because of these complexities

I am arguing that, though.

> causing incompatibility and lack of focus on more important areas.

All fair. All valid. None are my points.

> That is easily recognizable as second system syndrome by anybody

Nope. I refer you again to the definition.

> but you can call it something else if it pleases you.

Being right pleases me, yes. It's my job. My real name is at the top of my posts, while you hide behind a pseudonym.

I've been a published writer since 1995, writing about technology for about 15 different print magazines on 4 continents, paid by hundreds of organizations around the world to explain tech for them and to them.

My job is to understand words, language and technology, and explain it.

I am proud of my record in this. I list many of those publications on my LinkedIn profile.

I don't have a homepage on the WWW because if you Google my name, you will find me. I do not use pseudonyms or screen names anywhere.

I am always "lproven" or "liamproven" online and have been since 1991, when I signed up for my first personal/home email address.

But do continue angrily telling me that I don't understand technology, even though it's been my day job since 1988. It's quite funny.