Re: [9fans] Mars Needs Women

[Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>]

There have been many direct responses to my posts, every
one of them has a number of good points - even when I
disagree with some of them; and (as is natural and expected)
a number of misunderstandings as well.

I can't respond to them all without spamming the list, so I'll
refrain (wouldn't have the time to adequately respond  to
everyone anyhow).

Additionally, it's all too easy for the _holistic_ context of
what I'm trying to express to become entirely vaporised
and lost to the void if I foolishly chase after every piece
of flotsam and jetsam.

I'm hoping my response to Erik's email helps clarify my
position:

On Saturday 17 April 2010 07:00:57 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > It's imperative that the current official Plan 9 sources and distro
> > remain undisturbed.
>
> okay.  it may not be your intention, but now you're trolling.
> you complained that the official sources were stagnant in
> your opening salvo.  now you're arguing the opposite.  hard
> to take this completely seriously.
>

I didn't say that the official sources were stagnant. At any rate,
that certainly was not my intended message.

Regardless, even if the sources _were_ stagnant... and even if
Plan 9 proper was used  professionally by an even _smaller_
number of developers, it would still need to continue in its
own idiom without disruption. Why?

Nemo says it well in his book:

"The system is easy to use for programmers, and is an excellent
example of a high-quality system design and software development.
Studying its code reveals how simplicity can be more effective
by contortions made by other systems."

I wasn't joking when I said it was imperative that Plan 9 continues
as it always has.  And this is the reason why I'm using the phrase
"Plan X", as a pointer used to reference any potential alternative Plan 9
based distro... to avoid the conflict resulting from folks thinking there's
any intent to pollute/dilute Plan 9 proper.

(Regarding "Plan X" - it goes something like this:

It's impossible to talk about Plan X without talking about Plan 9 -
but talking about "Plan 9" does not always mean to imply "Plan 9 'proper',
the official distribution". Unfortunately, "Plan 9" is inherently ambiguous...
thus my use of "Plan X".)

> > * radical frugal simplicity throughout the entire system
>
> i think you have the ideology wrong.  from simplicity springs
> forth 9p, etc.  without the frugal design none of the people who
> use plan 9/inferno professionally would have any interest in plan 9.
> simplicity is the key.
>

I keep saying:  Plan 9 shouldn't be affected by any given potential
expression or discussion of a "Plan X". Plan 9 will not lose any
simplicity.

Case in point: Inferno (an example of a "Plan X" in actual
existence) did not in any way threaten or obviate Plan 9.

> > * a stance against POSIX and other standards
>
> what's your justification for this opinion?  plan 9 supports
> many standards.  off the top of my head: icmp, bootp (pxe),
> dhcp, ip, udp, tcp, smtp, http, ftp, imap4, pop, dns, etc.
>

Those are a different class of standards.

Which showcases the Plan 9 bias towards systems programming: highly
critical towards many/all platform/language standards, unconcerned/laissez
faire towards networking standards. Plan 9 chose not to fight any
network protocol standards (IL not withstanding), but it _did_ choose to fight
the POSIX/C99 et. al battle.

I theorize that there's multiple niches for various Plan 9 based operating
systems where the antagonism towards programming language
standards and C dialects, among other things, is inappropriate and/or
unsuitable - or merely unnecessary.

The above theory does not in any way suggest that the current
official Plan 9 customs and idioms are inferior/inadequate or inefficient
or illogical or unsound... etc. etc..

Pointing out the benefits and beauties of one thing does not somehow
detract from the benefits and beauties of another.

> surely you don't mean that the plan 9 community should accept
> (or implement) all languages.
>

Again, I'm not talking about Plan 9. However, a "Plan X" distribution
might very well have good reason to want to internally support and
maintain a native fork of one or more specific languages and libraries
and/or toolkits, in order to suit the goals and purposes of that particular
distribution.

> > * a strong bias towards a particular form of user interaction with the
> > system (i.e. acme, rio, etc)
>
> suggest something better.  if it doesn't exist, then implement it.
> convince people that you're ideas are better.
>

What constitutes "better" is (often) far too subjective on personal
perspectives and experiences, and far too dependent on the intended
use-cases of a project. There's no way in hell I'm going to promote
any ideas I might have regarding "Plan X", as being better than
the current 9fans rendition of the Plan 9 status quo.

The idea is not to _change_ Plan 9 proper, or its culture.

The idea is to consider whether the possibility of simply creating
an _additional_ space - for collaborating on and experimenting with
alternate expressions of the Plan 9 operating system[1] - is interesting
to anyone.

_If_ the interest is there (even if from only a couple people), the next
step is to figure out how best to stake out this additional new space.

Also, it's important to stress: if this additional new space actually
emerges (via whatever means, and through the efforts of whichever
people), it is critical that it materializes under generally good (or
at least neutral) terms.


[1] - once again, to make clear:

"Plan X" := "any, and all, potential alternate expressions of the Plan 9
operating system"

(Could be alternately phrased, for example, as:  Plan * or Plan ? , etc.)


Peace