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-M16387b553d4266e8a19cbce7 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
