Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Skip Tavakkolian]

perhaps a little introspection is needed.  was it that they didn't like
the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
year's effort?

or maybe they just want to spread their love.

> They took GNU Hurd, but not plan9? Terrorists!
>
>> Since we didn't hear back, and our name is not on the list
>>  of accepted projects, it appears that Google rejected our
>>  application.
>>
>>  Of course we'll try to figure out why and how we can do
>>  better next year.

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Iruata Souza]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> perhaps a little introspection is needed.  was it that they didn't like
>  the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
>  year's effort?
>
>  or maybe they just want to spread their love.
>

last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
effort made by the organization.

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
> effort made by the organization.

that, by definition, is an organizational problem.

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza <iru.muzgo@gmail.com> wrote:

>  last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
>  effort made by the organization.

I am going to assume you know this because you know the % of failed
projects for Plan 9, you know the % failed for all other projects, and
you know that all other projects had a lower % failed than Plan 9, and
all these were renewed? Or, better, someone at Google told you?

Otherwise, if this is idle speculation, we've got the Venti thread for
that one :-)

ron

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Iruata Souza]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza <iru.muzgo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
>  >  effort made by the organization.
>
>  I am going to assume you know this because you know the % of failed
>  projects for Plan 9, you know the % failed for all other projects, and
>  you know that all other projects had a lower % failed than Plan 9, and
>  all these were renewed? Or, better, someone at Google told you?
>
>  Otherwise, if this is idle speculation, we've got the Venti thread for
>  that one :-)
>

this is the written down result of my fast introspection.
in fact, if you read it again you might note i didn't say anything about gsoc08.

iru

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Paul Lalonde]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The required introspection is about how we function as an open source
community, I suspect.
We don't fit the usual open source mold, and generally cooperate
quite poorly with one another (with some notable exceptions).
Our projects aren't particularly well integrated, and don't lead in a
coherent directions.

Probably they made the right decision, unless we choose to address
these issues.  We might not *want* to address these issues, but we
should be aware of them.

Paul

On 18-Mar-08, at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:

>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Skip Tavakkolian
> <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
>> perhaps a little introspection is needed.  was it that they didn't
>> like
>>  the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
>>  year's effort?
>>
>>  or maybe they just want to spread their love.
>>
>
> last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
> effort made by the organization.
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFH3/a0pJeHo/Fbu1wRAruXAKC28cziwYbjKzMuv3+XA2LVjzTXNACguAV6
OquW4Z+MVv4lJ5C5nnqt9nI=
=s+eo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[hiro]

>  The required introspection is about how we function as an open source
>  community, I suspect.
This, i regard rather suspiciously.

>  We don't fit the usual open source mold, and generally cooperate
>  quite poorly with one another (with some notable exceptions).
>  Our projects aren't particularly well integrated, and don't lead in a
>  coherent directions.
By design, our filesystems are all about cooperation.
There are a lot of different, often unrelated projects based on plan9,
for this is a whole operating system and not some fancy ipod. Plan9
aims to be coherent on an other layer.

>  Probably they made the right decision, unless we choose to address
>  these issues.  We might not *want* to address these issues, but we
>  should be aware of them.
Choosing hurd can't be right.
We should be aware of the facts, Perhaps the issues are not as trivial
as I may put them, but your consequences are too wide in my view.
Even though I agree with you about plan9 being very different from
other systems, keep in mind, that in other context this kind of
individuality is often seen positively.
And again, take a look at hurd, they didn't get anywhere, allthough
being in that crazy open source mold.

--
hiro

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[andrey mirtchovski]

interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG ;)

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[hiro]

On 3/18/08, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
>  proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
>  certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG ;)

serious, there are still enaugh organizations, which could need a
filesystem interface. a hgfs (mercurial) would be nice.

--
hiro

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:

>  serious, there are still enaugh organizations, which could need a
>  filesystem interface. a hgfs (mercurial) would be nice.

What's the big win here?

ron

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[hiro]

> What's the big win here?
There is no *big* win. It would be of good use for me.

--
hiro

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[ron minnich]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:54 AM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What's the big win here?
>  There is no *big* win. It would be of good use for me.

I can see the attractiveness in one sense. I'd like to have
an (e.g.) git file system such that to compare trees I did not type
all these commands I can't remember ... just do a diff between top
level directories, have several versions available without having to
do git co etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

But what would you use it for? How would you access mercurial functions?

I'm more curious than anything.

ron

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[hiro]

>  I can see the attractiveness in one sense. I'd like to have
>  an (e.g.) git file system such that to compare trees I did not type
>  all these commands I can't remember
That's mostly all it...
I also thought about commiting by copying the working directory to the
virtual directory "store". But this would be no improvement, so I
would rather concentrate on reading access first. One could of course
add other functionality to the file server later, and use it together
with small scripts for a native command interface.
I'm rather unexperienced with plan9/inferno yet, so don't take this too serious.
Originally i think uriel came up with this idea before last year's gsoc.

--
hiro

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[andrey mirtchovski]

in the news:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/03/27/google_summer_code_debian_losers/

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Andrew Simmons]

>interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
>proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
>certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG ;)

Bushnell is no longer associated with the Hurd . Ironically, he
appears to have been sacked by Stallman after a licensing dispute as
to whether the GFDL, whatever that is, is really free.

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Pietro Gagliardi]

The GFDL governs documentation. It tries to keep your manuals free-as-
in-freedom. :-) Look at the absolute bottom of any page on Wikipedia.

On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:19 AM, Andrew Simmons wrote:

>> interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
>> proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
>> certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG ;)
>
> Bushnell is no longer associated with the Hurd . Ironically, he
> appears to have been sacked by Stallman after a licensing dispute as
> to whether the GFDL, whatever that is, is really free.
>

[9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Dave Eckhardt]

Since we didn't hear back, and our name is not on the list
of accepted projects, it appears that Google rejected our
application.

Of course we'll try to figure out why and how we can do
better next year.

Dave Eckhardt

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[hiro]

They took GNU Hurd, but not plan9? Terrorists!

On 3/18/08, Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Since we didn't hear back, and our name is not on the list
>  of accepted projects, it appears that Google rejected our
>  application.
>
>  Of course we'll try to figure out why and how we can do
>  better next year.
>
>
>  Dave Eckhardt
>
>


--
hiro

Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

[Hongzheng Wang]

Perhaps, just because GNU Hurd still needs too much work to put it
daily workable, while plan9 has already been :-)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:06 PM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:
> They took GNU Hurd, but not plan9? Terrorists!
>
>
>
>  On 3/18/08, Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>  > Since we didn't hear back, and our name is not on the list
>  >  of accepted projects, it appears that Google rejected our
>  >  application.
>  >
>  >  Of course we'll try to figure out why and how we can do
>  >  better next year.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Dave Eckhardt
>  >
>  >
>
>
>  --
>  hiro
>
>



--
HZ