Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

18.05.2024 05:33:10 vester.thac...@fastmail.fm: > Dealing with a social issues on this mailing list is akin to standing in a > summer sun, if I deal with them too long I'll become sun burned, and I'll > find myself in need to step out of the sun to reduce the severity of the > pain. If I can

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sat, May 18, 2024, at 00:51, Kurt H Maier wrote: > I love this article very much. Unhelpful, bossy blowhards should > experience exactly these emotions. My favorite part was the accusation > of "cancel culture," which I have learned is Boomer code for > "accountability." They really hate

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> you’re right, i apologize. big difference between being a total knob vs > exhibiting knob behavior in certain instances. and there’s no excuse for > aspersion. i would not add html to your email. thank you. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> i would not call people "losers" you’re right, i apologize. big difference between being a total knob vs exhibiting knob behavior in certain instances. and there’s no excuse for aspersion. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> This mailing list pre-dates the evident new philosophy of cancel-culture. > Back when this was still an only mildly hostile place the policy was "don't > feed the troll". We did indeed believe that ignoring (at worst adding their > address to an "ignore" list) was sufficient to deal with it.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> Why can’t we remove these losers from the mailing list? Look at this mess. If > you want to ask ChatGPT about 9front, by all means, it’s your computer. But > dumping walls of verbal diarrhea into the ML and onto LinkedIn and making > everyone fight over it is such a waste of time. I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

This mailing list pre-dates the evident new philosophy of cancel-culture. Back when this was still an only mildly hostile place the policy was "don't feed the troll". We did indeed believe that ignoring (at worst adding their address to an "ignore" list) was sufficient to deal with it. But I am

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> The document is blatantly AI-generated > Not accurate at all Why can’t we remove these losers from the mailing list? Look at this mess. If you want to ask ChatGPT about 9front, by all means, it’s your computer. But dumping walls of verbal diarrhea into the ML and onto LinkedIn and making

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

he already admitted he's using grammarly. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:00 PM Noam Preil wrote: > > There's a clear pattern, though. The document is blatantly AI-generated, > and I believe that the author acknowledged it as such ("the model was > confirmed as trained on 9front sources"); even if it

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

There's a clear pattern, though. The document is blatantly AI-generated, and I believe that the author acknowledged it as such ("the model was confirmed as trained on 9front sources"); even if it wasn't, the logical mistakes it makes are of a type humans don't generally make. The author has many

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

It is not, but in fairness, some people really do write the same way that the LLMs do, so it's not impossible for a real person to appear to be an LLM. I'm leaning towards LLM-generated, anyways. It's far too similar in structure / syntax to other AI spam I've had to deal with recently.

Re: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front

> The absence of Fossil from 9front was the one I found most difficult to > overcome, but at least in theory only the equivalent of "fossil/conf" (an > rc script I eventually shoehorned from plan9port) is essential. I can see > how it would be inconvenient to need to support software that is >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

A document that had no research put into it is not a first draft, it's at best spam. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te051f230f2656bbb-M636e86d3c30c32c5c186e579 Delivery options:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

no. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:47 PM Michael Kerpan wrote: > > Could people please stop accusing people of being fake just because they > write verbosly? That kind of behavior is part and parcel of the incredibly > rude and mean-spirited behavior mentioned in that LinkedIn thing. > > Mike > >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 07:32:18AM -0400, pl...@room3420.net wrote: > an other interesting reading : > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_more-articles_related-content-card I love this article very much.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Ok, I'm back. I stopped by because I heard about the ruckus. I am not wrong about my sentiments. I am not submitting disinformation. I'm expressing my viewpoint based on my experience and what I've witnessed reading 9fans. Help do the right thing and help eliminate abusive behavior. The

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:22:01PM +, Samuel Reader via 9fans wrote: > The 2nd draft is out. I've made some corrections as mentioned by others, and > I have added those who have helped to the acknowledgements. This draft is > only for those that are interested in the content. If you are not

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

I guess that Vic Thacker and Samuel Reader are the very same person. And Ori, I was trying to be sarcastic when I called the linkedin paper "interesting". :) -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

We call it as we see them, it is very clear that Vic is using an LLM. Based on his responses to being called out for it along with the way its been written. The article features AI art as well. Take one walk down Vic's story postings on linkedin. All AI art, all written in the same AI tone.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I confirmed the model was trained on 9front resources, including > git history. I looked quickly at the document but didn't see a statement that it was machine-generated text or what the inputs were. Though "LLM ethics" are far from settled, I think at this stage it would be good to state

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Hit the enter key a bit early... This is directed at Vic, if that is not clear already. To everyone else who called me out for assuming malice on victor's part because he was "just trying to help", does this not make my claim more obvious now? This likewise is including AI bullshit, and I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Could people please stop accusing people of being fake just because they write verbosly? That kind of behavior is part and parcel of the incredibly rude and mean-spirited behavior mentioned in that LinkedIn thing. Mike On Fri, May 17, 2024, 10:21 AM hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > or rename

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

it's hard to help if we don't see the query. why don't you put the query into the document, or better just make it some text files in a git repo so people can help you by sending patches. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:23 PM Samuel Reader via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > The 2nd draft is out.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

The 2nd draft is out. I've made some corrections as mentioned by others, and I have added those who have helped to the acknowledgements. This draft is only for those that are interested in the content. If you are not interested please disregard. I confirmed the model was trained on 9front

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

or rename that linkedin garbage to "using AI to disincentivize open discussion communities" On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:16 PM Jacob Moody wrote: > > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f/ > > This linked-in article is frankly disgusting, I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f/ This linked-in article is frankly disgusting, I suggest you take this incorrect garbage down. On 5/17/24 07:43, Samuel Reader via 9fans wrote: > It is only a first draft, and it is not a finished

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

It's very clear at this point Vic Has never read the 9front FAQ or perhaps any other documentation provided by 9front. Some of the things they ask from the community seem I'll informed because of that and other reasons (like asking for GPU drivers from the community for Nvidia or AMD is out of

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

still you have not disclaimed anywhere that this is machine generated. i expect a warning, bec. otherwise this low quality garbage is going to be interpreted by future humans and AI alike as possibly factual, which it clearly is not. but i give you bonuspoint for making it in quotation marks. On

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

i got very suspicious at the mention of a procinfo syscall - unlikely in plan9, and i couldn't imagine a use for such a thing given we have /proc already. -Steve -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

I'm not sure it is interesting. Quoth pl...@room3420.net: > an other interesting reading : > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_more-articles_related-content-card

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

It is only a first draft, and it is not a finished product. I'll correct the mistakes found. Thank you for the kind feedback. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Friday, May 17th, 2024 at 9:31 PM, qwx via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > On Fri May 17 13:33:21 +0200 2024,

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Fri May 17 13:33:21 +0200 2024, pl...@room3420.net wrote: > an other interesting reading : > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_more-articles_related-content-card I'm appalled and frankly furious about

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

I've included 9front git history. Here is the results. "I reviewed the 9front Git repository to confirm details about the differences between 9front and 9legacy. Here are some key points: 1. *Syscall Changes*: As mentioned, 9front did not add new syscalls beyond the 'nsec' syscall, which

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Great that you're building AI prompts instead of operating systems. More trollfactories for "cyber" "warfare" will mean that all our trolls will be out of a job soon. Vic, what you post on linkedin sounds mainly like a big "fuck you" towards 9front, not a fair answer given the technical

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:20 PM adventures in9 wrote: > Suggesting ways to try out a Plan9 system is not a hypothetical for > me. I put myself out there doing videos demonstrating Plan9 systems, > and so I get questions all the time. FWIW I have found your channel *extremely* helpful in

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

an other interesting reading : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-analysis-9front-community-conflict-vester-thacker-htt3f?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_more-articles_related-content-card -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

now an AI generated book? and you're blaming 9front of having invented new syscalls? what? oh come on! On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:07 PM samuel.reader via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > Someone asked about the differences between 9front and 9legacy. This first > draft provides a brief

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Quoth samuel.reader via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>: > Someone asked about the differences between 9front and 9legacy. This first > draft provides a brief overview. > https://link.storjshare.io/s/jx6tw46kfxskld45ussjek46ccpq/revitalizing-project/RevitalizingPlan9.pdf Unfortunately, it doesn't

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Someone asked about the differences between 9front and 9legacy. This first draft provides a brief overview. https://link.storjshare.io/s/jx6tw46kfxskld45ussjek46ccpq/revitalizing-project/RevitalizingPlan9.pdf -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> has an active community all working on the same fork. The most eye > opening thing about this whole long exchange is that the old Plan9 > people are largely working alone on private forks. apart from the ones who moved to plan9port on mac os. -- 9fans:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:56 PM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > > Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to use > our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users and

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Suggesting ways to try out a Plan9 system is not a hypothetical for me. I put myself out there doing videos demonstrating Plan9 systems, and so I get questions all the time. Everyone has access to amd64 machines. The used market is flooded with retired quad core amd64 Dell and Lenovo office

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:56:20 -0400 "ibrahim via 9fans" <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > I'm wondering why you don't adjust it so that 9front can also be run there. Because 9vx is a hacky dead end; it fundamentally only runs (and can only run) on 32-bit x86. It works because of a quirk of 32-bit x86

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 10:56, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: >> Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to >> use our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users >> and don't assume that they have

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to use > our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users and > don't assume that they have this same level of care for authenticity and "pure"

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> As others have pointed out I think an "official" classification is of little > pragmatic benefit, but it would be nice > to not have this tired conversation every email thread. Of course I have > reason to believe that even if the p9f were > to recognize 9front as being a "Plan 9" it still

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > Are you interested in sharing code between your fork and us? If you have no > intention of making your fork freely available then I don't think there is really much of a point in having some sort of compatibility layer. Of course I am

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 04:22, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: >> I would make a big difference between what plan 9 is and what the licenses >> are. Software doesn't care about licenses. People do (and they should!). >> >> So what is plan 9 even? Can we compare it to UNIX™ or unix or posix? Who >> knows... >> >> I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:32 PM, ori wrote: > it's a sad system that can't even host its own sources. If you are running a network for your work there is nothing sad about placing services on different OS'es. I'm using fossil-scm for about one decade had never problems it has nearly zero

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Quoth Jacob Moody : > If there were a couple of open source Plan 9 forks that each saw > active development and we were having issues with keeping the source > code ported between them sure I could see this as a reason to do > that. We have however never found that the source code proved much of

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 06:56, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:11 PM, hiro wrote: >> i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination >> of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed >> to work on "real plan9" we can all stop

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Quoth ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:01 PM, hiro wrote: > > did you ever hear of the git > implementation that ori has implemented? > > It was placed on the latest 9legacy CD and I'm not needing/using it. I'm > using fossil-scm which replaced cvs for me.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:01 PM, hiro wrote: > did you ever hear of the git implementation that ori has implemented? It was placed on the latest 9legacy CD and I'm not needing/using it. I'm using fossil-scm which replaced cvs for me. Fossil is running on a linux machine in my network and is

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> If we want to share contributions between forks we need a compatibility layer > if we don't want to we don't have to. adding more compatibility layers doesn't generally makes sharing of contributions easier. the more forks diverge the harder it will be, no matter how many layers you add.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 3:35 PM, G B wrote: > Then you are still driving a Benz Patent-Motorwagen built in 1885, which is > regarded as the first practical modern automobile instead of driving > something newer like a Mercedes Benz S-Class or Lexus or Acura since these > newer automobiles

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

"I respect your fork 9front but I won't and can't use it. 9front isn't plan9 from my perspective." Then you are still driving a Benz Patent-Motorwagen built in 1885, which is regarded as the first practical modern automobile instead of driving something newer like a Mercedes Benz S-Class or

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:26 PM, hiro wrote: > at this point all you're doing is speculation at best, it's verbose and spammy, and full of untruths. I do not welcome it, please stop generating noise. You don't have to read nor to reply to my posts. The amount of noise you create exceeds mine

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:11 PM, hiro wrote: > i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed to work on "real plan9" we can all stop contributing to 9front. please enlighten me who my future

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

ibrahim you're further inventing misleading terms and definitions that contribute nothing useful to any reader. the "means of porting" is something that you have to go and invest the work into, that's it. it's time, sweat, work. technology cannot help you much with this, renaming the forks also

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I personally prefer to call my fork based on plan9. I didn't write or invent > plan9. Nor is my version a replacement or a continuation of plan9 it is fork > based on plan9. can you please share it with us? i couldn't find a plan9 distribution named "based on plan9" in my google assistant. >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 06:52:37 -0400, "ibrahim via 9fans" <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > This was an example and I didn't find the original licenses from freetype in > the folder or in the code. Perhaps they got lost while porting this code to > 9front. Indeed, it would be strange to find them,

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> Note that 9front never claimed to be a continuation, but a fork. The people > who desperately cry for a continuation of plan 9 either claim 9front as a > continuation, or explicitly not. yeah, I did, but that's just me. for me 9front is the perfect continuation of plan9, both in code and in

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed to work on "real plan9" we can all stop contributing to 9front. please enlighten me who my future coworkers might be. who else is going to join the

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 12:40 PM, sirjofri wrote: > For me, it's "all plan9 systems", which includes belllabs plan9, 9legacy, > 9front and so on. That's one of the reasons I name 9front "a plan9 system", > not "the plan9 system", because there are a few different distributions/forks. The

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> if you notice missing copyright messages: please send a patch. i have no clue what is required, but if you represent freetype or truetype or can imagine their legal requirements, please help us out there. it will be highly appreciated. btw, i hear about this for the first time. This was an

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> namespaces. A few of the commands have changed, like rimport and rcpu > , instead of import and cpu. and just in case some readers might not know, since this topic came up: the reason why it's not called import and cpu is explicitly for backwards(4th ed./legacy/other forks) comaptibility.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

13.05.2024 12:12:49 ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:57 AM, sirjofri wrote: >> So, you could say, plan 9 from bell labs is the last released version, 4th >> edition. The others (9legacy, 9front, ...) are also plan 9, just not plan 9 >> from bell labs. > > I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I was trying to communicate that for the purposes of using hardware made this > millennia (as any "professional" would do), 9front clearly has better code > for doing so. > I trust that the licensing in 9front has been handled correctly. are you trying to imply 9front wouldn't have better

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:57 AM, sirjofri wrote: > So, you could say, plan 9 from bell labs is the last released version, 4th > edition. The others (9legacy, 9front, ...) are also plan 9, just not plan 9 > from bell labs. I personally prefer to call my fork based on plan9. I didn't write or

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:53 AM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: ... > The reasoning is simple : p9f owns the rights for the final release and Nokia > has made this release available under a MIT license. Every one who uses plan9 > not only to toy around or his/her personal use but

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

So, with that definition, the system described in the paper "Plan 9 from bell labs" is not plan9, because it describes any system that uses the same concepts? So, plan9 is like UNIX™ and there's no such thing as a concept about plan 9? Note that 9front never claimed to be a continuation, but a

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 18:22, ibrahim wrote: ... > plan9 is simply the final release made by bell labs and now owned by > p9f. Thats not my interpretation this is a fact. Everything beyond that > point is a fork based on plan9.  > > Everyone is allowed to derive his/her work from this provided

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:39 AM, hiro wrote: > are you contributing the team? and paying the team? If you asked me. I don't use 9front or any of your contributions why should I pay for or contribute to your team ? -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

are you contributing the team? and paying the team? On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:22 AM wrote: > > The complexity of communication in this medium often necessitates detailed > discussions. You highlighted the need for additional personnel to manage the > workload (e.g. do the work). From my

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I would make a big difference between what plan 9 is and what the licenses > are. Software doesn't care about licenses. People do (and they should!). > > So what is plan 9 even? Can we compare it to UNIX™ or unix or posix? Who > knows... > > I guess I could say a lot more about that topic,

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Hey all, Just about one topic mentioned by ibrahim: You mentioned that 9front can't be plan 9 in your perspective because of this licensing and the "origin" of the licensing. > 9front isn't plan9 from my perspective. Plan 9 is the final release with > patches for the files from sources I can

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I don't want to depend on anything. Your method is just adding other > dependencies to ghostscript if you start with ps, and other > dependencies, if not ghostscript, including C++ code that is inability > to port on Plan9, if you use pdf. > I don't have any dependences remaining you

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 7:17 PM clinton wrote: > > If I were completely naive to actually running plan9 but with many clues > about other operating systems and hardware, would it be better for me to > install 9legacy on some mildly obsolescent but still quite serviceable and > reliable

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 03:27:16AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > For the ghostscript thing, and for the record (noting that, in this > > area, I have put my code-money where my mouth is): > > > > I too want to get rid of Ghostscript. The path adopted is the > > TeX/METAFONT way with the

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 7:33 AM, ron minnich wrote: > So, Ibrahim,  I can not agree with your statement here.  I missed that they combined LPL licensed code instead of combining GPL licensed one. Thanks for the insides and sorry for the late response.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> For the ghostscript thing, and for the record (noting that, in this > area, I have put my code-money where my mouth is): > > I too want to get rid of Ghostscript. The path adopted is the > TeX/METAFONT way with the following: > > - A PostScript interpreter can be, functionnally, divided in two

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 8:21 AM, Jacob Moody wrote: > I was making fun of your bragging because you implicated more installs > equated to higher quality. I never said that more installs equate higher quality and I never said that the quality of your code sucks or my code quality is better.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:01:59PM -0700, Kurt H Maier via 9fans wrote: > [...] > One by one we're getting rid of the third-party software -- I > particularly look forward to the day we can finally ditch Ghostscript -- > but in the meantime these accusations of license violations are >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:18:54AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > You really should read the GPL. Your changes were included with GPL'ed code > even in the same file and not distributed as independent patches so the > modified work as a whole got infected by the GPL license. This is

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:04:24AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > There are many companies who double license code. As the owners of such code > they are free to do this. Users can't relicense code as they please > especially not GPL licensed code. At no point did we 'relicense' anything.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 00:45, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > libttf was one example and because it made its way into 9legacy i inspected > it. > >> Are you implying that a majority of users are using Plan9 in a commercial >> setting? That seems a bit absurd. >> For personal use I think these license issues (if

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> You have apparently not read our licensing document at > /lib/legal/NOTICE, which explicitly names the terms of the original Plan > 9 code, and assigns the MIT license only to changes produced by 9front. > > As the labs-provided code has been made available under different > licenses, we have

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:54:27AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Happily. Here's the original revision of /lib/legal/NOTICE: http://code.9front.org/hg/plan9front/file/944787349e93/lib/legal/NOTICE > The Plan 9 software is provided under the terms of

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Permalink > > In my opinion? you are wrong. And that's as far as I will stay involved in this

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

The last post had some paste copy issues : There are many companies who double license code. As the owners of such code they are free to do this. Users can't relicense code as they please especially not GPL licensed code. If you download code that is GPL licensed you can't change the license

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:52:29PM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > You ignore copyrights as you please and distributed 9front under an MIT > license long before Nokia as the owner of it decided to do so. You did > that at a time when plan9 was placed under GPL. You have apparently not read

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 7:33 AM, ron minnich wrote: > At no time in all this was there any evidence of incorrect behavior on the > part of 9front. None. Zip. Zero. Zed. They have always been careful to follow > the rules.  > > Further, when people in 9front wrote new code, they released it

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

libttf was one example and because it made its way into 9legacy i inspected it. > Are you implying that a majority of users are using Plan9 in a commercial > setting? That seems a bit absurd. > For personal use I think these license issues (if they do even exist) are of > no concern. I think

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 8:53 PM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > Not a single developer who uses plan9 for distributed systems, commercial > products will dare to use a system like 9front as the sources. The reason > is quite simple : > > You ignore copyrights as you please and

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Some excellent advice so far I have to say. A reasonable assumption is that I am at least a linux user (entirely accurate, I installed slackware from floppies a long time ago when the world was new and 486es were still moderately expensive). Would a BASIC interpreter count as an operating system I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/12/24 22:52, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 5:09 AM, Jacob Moody wrote: >> When people suggest tossing that all out for a minimally patched 4e, I think >> some people rightfully feel a bit annoyed. That's a lot of baby that goes >> out with that bathwater. > > It's

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Thank you, Ibrahim, for your comments. I can see where my suggestions do not make sense. It is too difficult a challenge for the communities to envisage. If no one can envisage it, then no one can do it. Vic On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 12:52, ibrahim wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 5:09

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 5:09 AM, Jacob Moody wrote: > When people suggest tossing that all out for a minimally patched 4e, I think > some people rightfully feel a bit annoyed. That's a lot of baby that goes out with that bathwater. It's Davids decission what he includes as patches for the

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

The approach is effective in open source projects when there are leaders who excel in communication, provide a clear vision, and prioritize objectives. Its effectiveness diminishes in the absence of strong communication and planning. Clear expectations generally facilitate easier collaboration

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/12/24 20:46, Dan Cross wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 9:33 PM wrote: >> I don't think this approach has ever worked in >> the open source world -- it always starts with >> someone building something useful. The vision >> and goal is defined by the work being done. >> >> After something

  1   2   >