From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <134e796bf13d888fc0742ee8da8c5ed3@coraid.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ports from GPL
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:22:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <454862c111d0f6eeb1b584a74ad6506a@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15aeb17e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Wouldn't at least gcc be from the MIT culture given its originator was
from the mit ai lab?  Where's readline and info from originally?
Not to mention emacs.

Where did the --option syntax originate?  Maybe they wanted to say /option
but that's not possible under Unix.  Wouldn't the -o vs --very-long-option-name
count as a MH vs. MIT artifact?

These are real questions.  I would like to know.


> oh ya. i think the gnu culture was seperate from the start.
> i started out by necessity. they needed to get their software
> to run on all kinds of unix varients, which were highly incompatable.
> and for a while it was pretty good stuff.
>
> (for example, the infamus mt xinu tools were suffering from bit
> rot when gnu tools started to become usable. for example,
> xinu grep had a really short line limit. gnu grep didn't (thanks mike.)
> the xinu shell was the original bourne shell, and would exit if you
> hit ^C at the wrong time and had signal-related memory
> issues because of its infamous memory management.)
>
> however gnu has devolved. they seem to value compiling on anything,
> and efficiency, but they don't seem to value simplicity. gcc is a good
> example of how getting as far out-of-balance as gnu seems to be
> can undermine one's primary goals.
>
> - erik
>
> On Fri Mar 17 05:35:36 CST 2006, brantley@coraid.com wrote:
>> > i think that open source code has a very different outlook
>> > on the world than plan 9. it's very hard (and frustrating) to
>> > deal with the culture clash when porting.
>>
>> That brings to mind something that I've been thinking about for a
>> couple of years.  In watching the stuff in Linux and poking around the
>> simulators and old code, I can see at least three different cultures.
>> Murry Hill (Bell Labs), 545 Technology Sq (MIT), and Berkeley.  These
>> cultures have belief systems that are mutually exclusive.  And there
>> must be subcultures as well.  The socket interface, for example, is
>> really MIT culture thru BBN to BSD.
>>
>> Anyone else see this?  More cultures?
>>
>>