Quoth Sigrid Solveig Haflínudóttir <[email protected]>: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone had any issues with 9legacy > taking functionality from 9front, vice versa. So both contain parts of each > other anyway. > > How is 9legacy "more Plan 9", but 9front isn't at all, then? Makes no sense > to me.
Yeah, I don't think there are any issues with cross fertilization of ideas or code. But I don't think that means they're then equivalent. But a fork is different than set of patches. When 9front is self-described as a fork of Plan 9 (from all accounts I've read), isn't that separating from the Plan 9? All the forks I can think of off the top of my head (LibreSSL and BoringSSL from OpenSSL; OpenBSD from NetBSD) certainly share code, but remain separate. In the latter, I can think of PF that was incorporated into NetBSD from OpenBSD even after the fork. Isn't that similar to what you're describing? > Would a mention of a practical fork/distribution/whatever-you-wanna-call-it > really hurt someone's ego that much? I don't know the answer to that question: it's not my ego. But from what I have read on this list it's not just ego that is involved. As I wrote in my last e-mail, I want 9front to be listed on the p9f.org page. But I'm a nobody, so I'm probably not going to persuade anyone. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T523d6e906a17a7cc-Mae74961461cbd11cc116c9ee Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
