From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0e41fbb3657fdf27a32bec6c116fe65d@csplan9.rit.edu>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:48:40 -0400
From: john@csplan9.rit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130904161943g1d20d435t904bab2f50d19ea8@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] security questions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dfa78674-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/4/16 erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:
>>> On Thu Apr 16 22:18:35 EDT 2009, devon.odell@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> > i just stated what i thought the historical situation was.  the
>>>> > point was only that changing direction will be difficult.
>>>>
>>>> This thread certainly proves that :)
>>>
>>> a 9fans thread proves nothing.
>>
>> Conceptually, anyway. Why is everyone always so hell-bent on hair-splitting? :P
>
> So much code, so much precision, so much specificity in dealing with
> computers. It often spreads outside of the computational context and
> into one's personality.
>

I'd think less that than the well-documented 9fans discussion process:
1. Someone brings up an idea
2. Half the list explains why it's bad
3. Trolling
4. Deciding on what is most "plan 9-ish"
5. No code is ever implemented by anyone



John