From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, Anthony Sorace <anothy@gmail.com>,
	fernanbolando@mailc.net
References: <1d5d51400603160011o26425af2y2a7775f51974b226@mail.gmail.com>
	<509071940603160503t1a1a1bcfs6edd1d024b9621b3@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <509071940603160503t1a1a1bcfs6edd1d024b9621b3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] ports from GPL
Message-Id: <20060317010530.991CC109C7@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:05:30 -0600
Cc:
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 14a88598-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't think that you're hitting on the main problem.

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.

i don't think it's a case of laziness.

- erik

"Anthony Sorace" <anothy@gmail.com> writes

|
| that depends entirely on the originating project. when folks have
| ported existing open-source applications in the past, results have
| been mixed. some projects have been willing to merge any changes or
| additions needed to support plan 9 (although in every such case i'm
| aware of, the plan 9-specific stuff subsequently rotted due to lack of
| exercise and/or maintenance); most, sadly, seem like they can't be
| bothered.