From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <1535997499.784480.1495319464.0DE4D730@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Ethan Gardener <eekee57@fastmail.fm>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <F102EB67-833D-4E79-BECB-DE6B1692963C@gmail.com>
References: <CAOk9ws1kxHh5MhRVwTMwPjM763++VmFMda-vefk8SZFt8y=OTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFSF3XNKZu1V=nYSo0vce0FvngjHMZpTtAh_yqb7S-yQt7MPXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJQ9t7gNAywpPgfb1ywaxhBwCZU+VgaZRLp1F1tTGzyWL3o7aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F102EB67-833D-4E79-BECB-DE6B1692963C@gmail.com>
Date: Mon,  3 Sep 2018 18:58:19 +0100
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?"
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0b1ff68-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Chris McGee wrote:
> While the idea that many eyes makes bugs shallower seems to have failed
> in the world of complex behemoth software it may work here.

I think it worked for a while, but eventually complexity grew beyond even the many eyes approach.