is the p9f website not a wiki? trying to fix this i managed to 9p mount something, but didn't find the index page...
whoever added the miller and 9legacy links might be able to help us out? On 4/2/21, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote: > This was unnecessarily complain-y and overly political. "It would be nice > for p9f.org to also link 9front" is all I really meant here. I'm sorry for > this message, and appreciate that p9f is both nascent and nobody's actual > job. > > Kind regards, > > --dho > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 22:25 Devon H. O'Dell <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been pretty silent on the list for years, and I hope that as a >> former collaborator on foundation efforts and former Plan 9 GSoC >> co-admin and mentor, and assurance that my silence hasn't been >> ignorance, that my opinion still has weight with folks in p9f. >> >> I have to admit a bit of surprise that the foundation will accept GSoC >> projects for 9front without linking 9front on its page. Additionally, >> the about page doesn't describe any of the 9front efforts. While I >> have not been a fan of some interactions between 9fans and 9front over >> the years, these politics seem largely antiquated, and my impression >> is that the 9front community "political jokes" are (at least in the >> past 5 years) much less acerbic, if present at all. The system itself >> is the most active in the community, with bugfixes, new hardware >> support, and new (purist-compatible) features not present in any other >> "fork". >> >> I'm not a fan of what's starting to look like some weird form of >> historical revisionism. Functionality-wise, 9front is tip-of-tree. >> Realistically, 9front is tip-of-tree. This is the third or fourth >> thread asking why 9front has no mention on p9f.org. Why does 9front >> have no mention on p9f.org? >> >> Unlike Lucio, I have no desire to encourage nor coordinate >> consolidation of forks. I don't think that's necessary. The ecosystem >> is fractured, and has been for nearly 2 decades. I don't think that's >> a problem. We can admit that we're a fractured ecosystem, and embrace >> that. P9f seems to do that by accepting funds for GSoC contributions >> to 9front, without any acknowledgement of 9front's presence outside of >> soliciting project ideas. Without assigning malice or blame, this is >> not correct. It should be easy to see how this is politically >> problematic. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> --dho >> >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Lucio De Re <lucio.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not >> > respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that >> > nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally >> > subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly >> > a critical event in Plan 9's existence. >> > >> > On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9f...@sirjofri.de> wrote: >> > > I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e >> > > release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is >> > > 4e >> > > plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front, >> > > which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe >> also >> > > the system which supports most hardware, maybe. >> > > >> > I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I >> > make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely, >> > I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of >> > solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just >> > symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap >> > may well recall this exchange. >> > >> > The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call >> > 9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path >> > of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment >> > disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into >> > Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy. >> > >> > I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical >> > fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed >> > at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as >> > possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the >> > viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a >> > research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted). >> > >> > Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for >> > contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared >> > product will help attaining such an objective. That two different >> > paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but >> > officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of >> > redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence. >> > >> > We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the >> > Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and >> > totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me. >> > >> > There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now, >> > where my fears will be allayed or solidified. >> > >> > Lucio. >> > >> > ------------------------------------------ >> > 9fans: 9fans >> > Permalink: >> https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mc2c17a3454be4b4912515379 >> > Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M88c3d4a2736ee21761a57434 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
