From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: , "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com> <201004242314.24052.corey@bitworthy.net> <000001cae48b$1ca3bbc0$55eb3340$@gmail.com> <201004251904.20025.corey@bitworthy.net> In-Reply-To: <201004251904.20025.corey@bitworthy.net> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:06:11 -0400 Message-ID: <000301cae4f5$cfbb00a0$6f3101e0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] [PlanX] Re: Mars Needs Women Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e04e9de-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > Then experiment! > > >=20 > I _am_ experimenting! (c8=3D > > 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 =E2=89=A0 Experimentation =20 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=E2=80=99s 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. >=20 > Digression: > Interfering with the above concept, is the communally-held 9fans axiom > that: >=20 > Talk - Action =3D Zero > (which is of course sometimes true) >=20 > 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 =E2=88=88 Float; Time =E2=88=88 constant Float =E2=89=A1 Module {[+ Module]}; =E2=87=92 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. >=20 > 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. =20 > 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: >=20 > * 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. =20 > 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. =20 > 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'. =20 > Another digression: > I don't think that is quite what the difference between us is. >=20 > 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=E2=80=A6 > 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. =20 > 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: >=20 > 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. =20 > 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. =20 > I'm confused though, because earlier you stated: >=20 > "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" =E2=88=98 ", but" =E2=88=98 "we are in = this amazing age where cloning is possible, so create a 'clone' and do = what you please." =20 > Again, Plan X is not Plan 9 'proper' (the official distribution). >=20 > 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