I can say the same for many other OSs, like BeOS or Native Oberon, just to name two of them, but in the end it is (1) that counts.

It is like football, it does not matter how brilliant a team plays, but which one has higher score when the referee signals the end of the game.

IMHO, (1) is the not only think that counts in the end. A 'failed' (as in (1)) concept may have a second life in future works. Also, in the case of plan9 some ideas did get traction (UTF-8 for example), some didn't so it's not all bad. Comparisons are tricky, you can compare an OS to a football team, and then yes maybe what you say is right. Or you can compare it to a work of art, then what matters is the influence the works has in shaping the future...

Yeah, maybe I was a bit too harsh.

It is just that I personally never found Plan9 that interesting, except for its successor Inferno and Limbo.

For me operating systems that explore designs done with regards to micro architectures or safe systems programming languages are much more interesting.

So for me Plan9 tends to be just another OS. And yes I have used it.