> But even all that begins to miss the original attempted point of my > first post: the idea that perhaps it could be beneficial if there > were some means for interested Plan 9 fans to rationally discuss and > speculate on different potential expressions of Plan 9 based operating > systems. >
That's called "show us the code!" around here :-) It is frustrating to get only negative responses whenever issues like this are raised, but you have to realise that those who agree with you are not prepared to do the work and thus they have learnt to shut up as they have nothing to put up. Those who do put up, like fgb, do not seek approval: they deliver the goods and know that they are appreciated and utilised. I guess that means that you ought to do the same. To use myself as an example, I'd be very pleased to find support for my efforts at porting GCC to Plan 9 (yes, I have a working version, but I'm not happy with the results), of adding ELF capabilities to the Plan 9 kernel (done that, but testing it is a totally different kettle of fish), of consolidating the Plan 9 native C toolchain with the fresher Go model, then adding mips-64 to it and producing Plan 9 native or ELF code from it all. But it's not something I can expect anyone else to work on with me, although a lot of work has been done by cinap and I have learnt much from it. These balls are all in my court: not very communal development, but that is the spirit of Plan 9 and many believe that Plan 9 is what it is because of this individual effort. You (and I, even) may disagree, but history suggests that communal development as it is known now leads to irreversible bloat. So if you have a brilliant idea (not some grandiose concepts with little meat) you have to be able to deliver on it before anybody here will adopt it. Putting it another way, no one believes you when you claim that there is another path out there that will lead to Eldorado. Bring back some gold nuggets and you'll see an immediate attitude change. ++L
