From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 May 2014 19:29:52 -0400
From: sl@9front.org
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <03989c649276ac81549ba9e2bedf0658@pi.att>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e26d575e-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> No, it wasn't. There was some confusion over the point that
> Plan 9, unlike some other systems, selects the arch based
> entirely on the running kernel (no 386 binaries running on
> amd64 machines).

Do you recall the reason this guy is even trying to install
Plan 9?

Kernel hacking.

Once he builds the amd64 userland, what does he do with
it? What would be the next step in making use of that userland?
Obviously, not booting a 386 kernel. My comments followed
the context of the conversation from its inception and were
relevant to the replies therein. The back-and-forth with Erik
(and later, you, Charles, etc.) branched out into other territory,
but this whole thread is based on a new guy being given weirdly
cryptic responses in reply to very basic confusion that is easy
to clear up if we just put together words in an obvious manner
and speak clearly. If it's silly to suggest one of the forks,
then it's equally silly to pretend an amd64 kernel is on the
table at all.

The chain was this:

prospective kernel hacker asks about amd64 ->
receives accurate answer ->
someone says no, no ->
explanation of building amd64 userland (with non-Labs code) ->
last minute revelation of relevant facts ->
someone points out that secrets, by definition, are not generally known ->
someone denies the obvious, casts aspersions on the forks ->
weird accusations ->
denials ->
arguing ->
complaints ->
this message

When did anyone plan on telling this guy that an amd64 kernel
is not even on the table?

Remember: The argument against investigating one of the forks
was that he should stick close to the Labs distribution, right?

When I said that people weren't aware of the full situation,
I was referring to the fact that nobody seemed to be aware
this guy had made prior arrangements to do work on Charles'
non-Labs code. He asked a common question about amd64
(ignoring for a moment the confusion about the difference
between VM host and guest CPU as seen by the guest OS) so
people gave him relevant answers. Then we stepped
on the apparent land mine. Now it's the fault of forks
for existing. All because nobody could just say: "Hack
on the 386 kernel because nothing else is in the official
distribution yet."

Why is this stuff always so difficult?

sl