sometimes i prefer technical decisions to be taken by the people doing the work and not the community (e.g. not me). community can be nice in other situations, and we have several of those ready anyway, but normally people that make nothing happen should not hold special powers in any way.
i might add my opinion some time cause i'm just so interested, but i'm not gonna be mad if everybody is just gonna ignore it based on my incompetence :) what kept plan 9 ticking is the relatively simple system design that actual living beings are able to read and understand. especially in contrast to the unix based systems out there this is obvious. if you have a problem with any of the design improvements that cinap has done to plan9 that created any kind of incompatibility please tell us more details so we can look into it or at least explain. On 2/11/21, Lucio De Re <lucio.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/11/21, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I like >>> to think that there is "One plan 9" struggling to be born from these >>> variations. >> >> it there's any "One plan 9" it's clearly called golang. cause all >> added syscalls to any of the distributions came from there... >> > Well, I'd love to catch up on how NetBSD coped with the Golang > demands, their Foundation was, to the best of my knowledge, also run > by "purists". That said, I presume the new syscalls could probably be > tucked in the Go runtime. Or is it essential to match everything that > Linux does? > >> if that incident had not happened i'd have now claimed: the one good >> thing that comes out of multiple competing plan9 distributions is that >> there's a stronger urge to stay backwards compatible, as that will >> provide interoperability between all competitors in the long run. >> > I don't see why that should not remain an objective, although not an > exclusive one. What I believe is that shrinking the base system is > preferable to expanding it. I'm willing to sacrifice performance for > simplicity, no matter what the public gets sold. > >> gladly the will to sync crucial changes regardless is strong enough, >> so i guess it doesn't matter. >> > It does matter. The need to incorporate many bug fixes from Cinap has > been obvious for a long time. But drawing the line between bug fixes > and incompatible changes is a responsibility that needs community > agreement, even when guided by a "foundation". > > I think what has kept Plan 9 ticking for the past 25 years or more, is > that this community is small enough to keep connected to the "product" > in its more abstract sense. Whatever that sense is, it is what we > share and, presumably, appreciate, so we ought to preserve it, neh? > > Lucio. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M204fbe4b6b220e17613e1c92 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
