From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:02:16 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0f3ffa2580853f43a31188a801994e3c@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <82af4df383dbdfc93944531f9ce11494@gmx.de>
References: <82af4df383dbdfc93944531f9ce11494@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx instability
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 45688cb8-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Nov 24 15:40:16 EST 2011, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote:
> so it is childish to replace 9load? or build a distribution that
> uses the stable and robust cwfs instead of fossil? write an
> audio layer? moving realmode and keyboard processing to userspace?
> unify the boot process to to break into rc shell, so one can
> at see what hardware got detected, poke at ctl files ect?

my intention here is not to offend.  i like you, i like your code.
but i think this defense misses the point entirely.

if folks have a problem with 9front it is not technical.  folks don't
get that far.  it is because 9front appears to have defined itself in criticism
of people (not code).  and further defined itself by some offensive files.
this makes 9front appear less than serious.  to be honest, it's one
of the reasons i've stopped following 9front.

to paraphrase a saying in mathematics, it's not enough to be good
you must also be humble.  why do you think dennis' ideas took
over?

- erik