> I suggested that the sources could be included in the distribution, so they > would not fork-rot as they are doing presently. It's always been the case > that the Plan 9 distribution included "broken" sources that could not be > compiled without external support, but were interesting enough to be > published.
this is a good point, and this is exactly the kind of arguments that i would like to see more of on 9fans. > That changed some when Alef was dropped and in fact I saved the Alef > development stuff and ported it to 3ed and 4ed because I disagreed with the > decision. Note that I made a sweeping generalisation, for simplicity, much > was discarded between 2ed and 4ed, and I find all that quite regrettable. Interesting, thanks for sharing some of that history. > I am certain that Cinap had good reasons for removing Fossil, but I'm not > sure you have painted the entire picture for this audience. No matter, of > course, 9front will be what 9front will be. I agree with you that maybe "removing Fossil" was a little bit overly dramatic, and maybe the goal was indeed to send a strong message with this act. otoh, i can understand the anger, after countless people lost their data, trusting that fossil is certified by bell-labs and "totally safe". > I'm not going to argue with the semantic subtleties of "bad" as you interpret > it, but I will privately consider your judgement and interpret your postings > with a bias parallel to the one you have displayed toward me so far. i hope you can reconsider for the sake of technical professionalism. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-Md14cc9dfc8c8cc5391ff07fc Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
