> > Then experiment!
> >
>
> I _am_ experimenting! (c8=
>
> Silently on my own I'm engaged in the sort of ruggedly independent, lone
> cowboy style research and development which defines
> 9fans'
> standard operating procedure. (in this instance, it involves reducing the
> Blender 2.5 codebase down to the minimal core UI/WM
> framework[*], for the purpose of prototyping a possible alternative Plan 9
> user interface)
Observation ≠ Experimentation
Stripping down the blender code base might be more work than it's worth. I
haven't really looked at it so I don't know, but in general that’s the case.
You may be better off with just writing from scratch.
As far as I've seen, and I may have missed this, you haven't mentioned anything
about an alternate interface. You'd be more likely to get help with a specific
project like that, than just say, hey lets fork Plan 9!
> However, the "Plan X" experiment (which was intended to occur asynchronously
> to my solitarily-confined efforts), _specifically_
> revolves around the idea of attempting to churn out some discussion and
> collaboration _before_ attempting to produce anything.
One thing at a time, trying to plan too many things at once wastes time.
>
> Digression:
> Interfering with the above concept, is the communally-held 9fans axiom
> that:
>
> Talk - Action = Zero
> (which is of course sometimes true)
>
> The problem is that ++Talk does not always mean Action--
> (hello Captain Obvious)
That isn't obvious at all.
Time is a fixed value; you can break it down into modules, but when you
increase once module you must decrease the other.
Module ∈ Float;
Time ∈ constant Float ≡ Module {[+ Module]};
⇒ Time allocated for talk means less time allocated for action, just like time
allocated for the gym means less time allocated for coding.
> When a project (or potential project) requires advice and experience
> that crosses boundaries over a variety of perspectives and skillsets, a
> front-loaded collaboration period is a logical and reasonable approach.
If a project is that complex, then it should be modulated, with each module
assigned to an individual. Finish your modules and others may join in.
> Before anything, "Plan X" is/was conceptualized as initially bootstrapping
> itself as a thinktank.
>
> A "thinktank" comprised of a single individual battling through the flame
> drizzles of a sensitive/reactionary social environment and/or twiddling his
> thumbs on a mostly empty mailing list is...suboptimal
So my work is suboptimal?
> But, so it goes - the idea hasn't so far produced more than a few interested
> parties (who've all chosen to respond offlist). I'm willing to give it "the
> 'ol college try"... but I'm certainly not stubborn enough to continue in the
> face of near total adversity.
Good, I think you will notice much better results as you progress more and
more. Work breeds work, conversation breeds conversation.
> The irony here is that the philosophical arguments are largely a simple result
> of me attempting to carefully confront the usual battery of misunderstandings
> and assumptions and defense-mechanisms.
The confrontations, at least from me, were related to what I felt might be
needless work. By what I understood, you wanted to create a fork for the sake
of creating a fork. If I misunderstood then I am terribly sorry.
We get a good deal of people who come here wanting us to do the work to
implement their ideas. That isn't how the real world operates, so we get
defensive about it, not just because we don't want to do other peoples work,
but because it would be better for them to do the work themselves.
> Despite my best efforts, I'm still seeing folks inferring or projecting the
> following fallacies:
>
> * I'm being a troll who's objective is to embroil people in arguments
> * I'm being a motormouth who wants nothing more than to gab on and on
Yes, a bit.
> * I'm trying/hoping to change 9fans culture in my own image
> * I'm trying/hoping to change Plan 9 'proper' according to my own notions
> * I'm trying/hoping to convince other people to do work on my behalf
> I'm doing my absolute best to make myself understood, while attempting to
> avoid unnecessary conflict and irrelevant sub-flames.
Well I'm still not sure I understand the whole Plan X thing. You haven't given
a good reason for why a fork would be needed. You're completely free to do what
you want though, you don't need permission.
There are two ways to make your ideas understood. One is to complete the
project, creating that "oh~ okay, I see now" effect. The other is to rationally
explain in great detail. We advocate the first because it kills two birds with
one stone.
But you've said you've started some development, or at least have a group, and
that is a start.
> I'd prefer not to narrowly frame things in terms of my own personal needs.
Everything we do is personal, even if it's also social.
> "Plan X" is more about discussing potential areas of interest with others;
> for the purpose of possibly identifying a common subset of software that,
> if intelligently and selectively implemented, would more easily facilitate
> new vectors of research and development that are currently made difficult
> or effectively impossible for most mere mortals due to missing or
> inadequate/inappropriate toolchains, libraries and/or toolkits.
I thought that was part of the point behind the mailing list.
> That is very cool, and I'd certainly like to hear more, if you're inclined to
> provide further detail.
I would ask that you send a private message, just to avoid clobbering up 9fans,
but I'm more than happy to share ideas.
I would also be more than happy to bounce ideas around, assuming that they are
concrete ideas and not just 'hey what about porting this'.
> Another digression:
> I don't think that is quite what the difference between us is.
>
> Before you start working on a project, you _think_ about the various ways
> in which you might approach and implement things, right?
Not purely, I read A LOT of research papers in which other people have
discovered and repetitively proven various ideas. There is still some thinking,
but it's just about which ideas fit my goals, not new ideas.
> If you choose not to socially brainstorm and collaborate with others before
> actively engaging on the implementation of any given project - then I can
> only imagine it's because you're confident that you are sufficiently equipped
> with the necessary breadth and depth of skills, abilities and knowledges
> needed to effectively and efficiently fulfill the range of requirements
> necessary to complete your intended project.
Nope, I let others do the brainstorming; I just dig through the chaos.
My work in hardware is another story though…
> If I was a jealous person, I'd probably feel a bit envious of your talents.
Don't be jealous, it's not good for anyone.
> So, to get back to the point: I think the difference between you and I, is
> that you have a broader and deeper spectrum of core competencies than
> myself. Clearly: you're able to produce a complete tool chain and develop
> a system that is similar to Plan 9, but more suited to your own requirements,
> all by yourself.
Anyone is capable, given enough time. I don't plan on doing it all by myself
though. Just the core stuff: tool-chain, kernel, firmware, and the little
things to get it self-hosting. After that, anyone who feels like it can develop.
> I strongly disagree that the idea is inherently foolish - in fact I think that
> the general idea is demonstrably sound - but I simply have no motivation
> or inclination to attempt to prove you wrong by debating subjective,
> personal opinions/experiences:
>
> The only way to approximate something that could be taken as a semblance
> of 'proof', would first require that some sort of "Plan X" analog actually
> manifested itself - whether it was a foolish experiment in futility or not
> would depend on seeing what sorts of social and technical artifacts resulted
> after a reasonable measure of time.
You can't know something is false until proven false. I would assume that
statement would be equally valid considering foolishness. I could very well be
the fool though, only time will tell.
> If Plan 9 has had everything that's needed and is perfectly sane - then why
> was Inferno produced? The point there is not to imply that Plan 9 is lacking -
> but rather to assert that different use-cases have different sets of needs,
> and thus different requirements, and thus different perspectives of what
> constitutes "complete, and sane".
Last thing I knew, there was a Limbo compiler for Plan 9.
> And did Plan 9 loose simplicity and sanity upon Inferno's entrance onto the
> playing field?
Nothing I'm aware of.
> I'm confused though, because earlier you stated:
>
> "so why do you need a fork? Plan 9 would and will suffice."
It means; I don't understand why you want to create a fork but just go ahead
and create it.
"Plan 9 would and will suffice" ∘ ", but" ∘ "we are in this amazing age where
cloning is possible, so create a 'clone' and do what you please."
> Again, Plan X is not Plan 9 'proper' (the official distribution).
>
> In fact, "Plan X" is specifically for the purpose of facilitating _various_
> eXperimental/eXploratory eXpressions of alternative Plan 9 based operating
> environments than what is desired and possible within the official
> distribution.
So if I understand now, Plan X is just a test bed. Should your hypotheoretical
ideas be valid and welcome, they could then be merged back.
Remember to be thorough in your propositions, it helps everyone out.
> Cheers, and kind regards
