One Plan Nine? Sure, we have the historical version of the Bell Labs/Lucient codebase, preserved as 9legacy, but yeah we have one currently developed branch of Plan 9 called 9front. Are you proposing that to be called “Plan 9 from Bell Labs 5th edition”?
To be serious though, when has monolithic code bases ever benefited things in an Open Source community? I mean the only reason would be to control who can/cannot make decisions on what goes in the stone soup. There are multiple BSDs. There are multiple Linuxes. Using 9legacy as more than historical baseline means that we will be stuck with decisions put in place 20-30 years ago rather than iterating and moving things forward. The purpose of P9F is to “promote and support” not to regulate. I would love to imagine a time when we have a resurgence of multiple Plan 9s. I would love to see Akaros and 9atom have a shot in the arm [although much of what the latter had seems to be swallowed up by 9front and 9legacy and the project dead]. I would love to see NIX get a little more traction, as it seems it is just a standalone experiment [albeit a cool one in terms of goals]. I think it would be really healthy for Jeanne and Harvey to be more closer to “family” in the community rather than third cousins. Once we have a plurality of opinions, of perspectives, of visions, then we can better broker standards and overall trajectories. Best, -pixelhersy > > PS: This does rather sound like we ought to have a lobbying group to > propose and prepare updates for submission to the One Plan Nine (1P9) > that the Foundation is hopefully aiming towards. Of course, that would > also require an arbitration group within the P9F that responds to > requests in a timeous manner. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M028436730443a261d224355a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
