Re: [9fans] insularity

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Noah Evans]

Exactly(if I understand you right). Everything that's been added on since then is just a way of avoiding the right way of doing things(i.e. coming up with a way of describing the problem, then adding that idiom to your vocabulary). But then again, I'm just quoting the gospel of  "software tools". 

Sociologists have studied this process quite a bit. A small group of talented people come up with something very interesting and elegant, like a religion or clothing style, and then as it spreads and diffuses the meme begins to mutate and simplify. Pretty soon it ossifies and barely even resembles the original. I wish I had paid more attention when my professor was discussing it. 

Noah

----- Original Message -----
From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [9fans] insularity

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Noah Evans wrote:
> 
> > A really bad habit of mine is relying on the history to do things,
> > Rather than spend the initial cost of effort to write a shell 
> function> and remember it, I'm constantly using Bash's tab 
> completion and history
> > functions to avoid having to expend any effort organizing my 
> patterns of
> > use and solving problems. Everything I do is an ad hoc solution.
> 
> there's some real humor here, in some sense, as this is what we 
> did in the 
> 70s with Unix V6, before stuff like history. Some things have come 
> full 
> circle.
> 
> ron
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Noah Evans]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.

I'm not saying that people can't have a perfectly productive and enjoyable experience in other systems. What I'm saying is that those experiences are essentially impoverished. By necessity in windows and by sufficiency in modern *nix. 

Think of this analogy, modern operating systems are like eating in restaurants all your life. It's fine if you like the food, but if you ever want something else, because you never learned to cook(linux) or the restaraunt won't let you(windows), you'll be stuck. Or, worse yet, you'll end up building another restaurant to get the food you want, wasting 10 times the effort you would have learned by learning the proper(tool based) way of doing things.

Noah





By 

The difference between rote memorization and understanding. 

----- Original Message -----
From: bs <bs@nospam.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [9fans] insularity

> 
> > But this philosophy is lost on people who are used to the 
> windows/consumer Unix world because they're used to solutions that 
> violate the tools method of solving problems. 
> This is not a fair statement.
> IMO, the beauty of something is to the builder, the experience of 
> something is to the user.
> A porsche driver cares about how it feels to drive, not the 
> geometry of 
> the suspension or the degrees of freedom used to tune it.
> 
> Similary, one can keep the innovations of plan9 under the covers 
> and 
> deliver something an end user might enjoy(even if it means tab 
> completion). (this is from someone who has contributed zippo (other 
> than 
> noise) to this list).
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Michael H. Collins]

bobdamn this thread


Noah Evans wrote:
> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.
> 
> I'm not saying that people can't have a perfectly productive and enjoyable experience in other systems. What I'm saying is that those experiences are essentially impoverished. By necessity in windows and by sufficiency in modern *nix. 
> 
> Think of this analogy, modern operating systems are like eating in restaurants all your life. It's fine if you like the food, but if you ever want something else, because you never learned to cook(linux) or the restaraunt won't let you(windows), you'll be stuck. Or, worse yet, you'll end up building another restaurant to get the food you want, wasting 10 times the effort you would have learned by learning the proper(tool based) way of doing things.
> 
> Noah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 
> 
> The difference between rote memorization and understanding. 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bs <bs@nospam.com>
> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 8:05 pm
> Subject: Re: [9fans] insularity
> 
> 
>>>But this philosophy is lost on people who are used to the 
>>
>>windows/consumer Unix world because they're used to solutions that 
>>violate the tools method of solving problems. 
>>This is not a fair statement.
>>IMO, the beauty of something is to the builder, the experience of 
>>something is to the user.
>>A porsche driver cares about how it feels to drive, not the 
>>geometry of 
>>the suspension or the degrees of freedom used to tune it.
>>
>>Similary, one can keep the innovations of plan9 under the covers 
>>and 
>>deliver something an end user might enjoy(even if it means tab 
>>completion). (this is from someone who has contributed zippo (other 
>>than 
>>noise) to this list).
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Michael H. Collins  Admiral, Penguinista Navy	
http://linuxlink.com

http://www.gracklenews.com/

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Noah Evans]

I'm really not sure how to answer this without waxing philosophical.

I think the real key here is the idea of nature vs nurture. Some people are born with a great ability to handle complexity, they can, just by looking at the source code, discussions and man pages, determine all of the important ideas by induction. These people will naturally gravitate towards the elegant and the good.

But there are other people, who lack this natural ability but still possess a great thirst for knowledge and drive yet can't find the right information on their own. These are the people with the potential to grasp Plan 9 but lack the nurturing environment that will allow them to realize this potential. They muddle around the wiki for a little bit, read some 9fans and maybe post once or twice and then decide they're too stupid, plan 9 sucks, what have you. 

These are the people I'm talking about. Most of the people on this list are in the first category so people in the second category seem dense or deliberately obtuse. By trying to understand their position I think we can do a lot more to make Plan 9 accessible.

Noah

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [9fans] insularity

> > When you pit this mastery against the sense of entitlement  that 
> comes> from mainstream systems you get conflicts like this. People 
> expect> canned solutions not pointers to *how* to solve things.
> 
> Yes, and maybe we should emphasise this more.
> 
> Personally, I feel that if people don't "get it",
> then maybe that's their problem?
> 
> > The real issue is how to solve this problem. 
> 
> Well, to some extent it solves itself ...
> 
> If people aren't willing to invest the effort,
> then they don't get the benefit.
> 
> Remember, I'm in a far worse position than a lot of 9fans:
> I have no plan9 system, but nonetheless, I think I "get it".
> 
> > I propose that we emphasize the tools philosophy to clarify the 
> underlying philosophy and justifications in introductions to new 
> users. It's already there really, but scattered in other 
> explanations rather than dealt with systematically. 
> 
> Well, OK, but I would have thought that was a "given" ...
> 
> > One way of solving this would be to use existing books like the 
> >  "Unix Programming Environment" or "Software Tools" with their 
> code updated for Plan 9. I think a lot of people avoid those books 
> because they don't believe they need to learn ancient Unix or 
> Ratfor. And it's a shame because they miss the conceptual forest 
> for the trees of individual system implementations and cruft. 
> 
> > I'll gladly contribute anything I can if we can agree on a roadmap.
> 
> Well, I still think that,
> since I "get it" with the available information, there's no problem!
> 
> 	Dave.
> 
> 
> 

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Noah Evans]

Sorry to pile on to the discussion.

As rob said It's a fundamental difference in perspective. 

Plan 9 was more or less inscrutible to me until I read the Unix Programming Environment and Software Tools. 

why wasn't there a tar z? why wasn't there tab completion? Where was my history and job control?

These things are obvious to people who are familiar with the philosophy(I always think of boyd's comments to hapless newbies :)), if you use a long command combination often enough you should write a shell script or a shell function. essentially adding to your productive vocabulary. 

But this philosophy is lost on people who are used to the windows/consumer Unix world because they're used to solutions that violate the tools method of solving problems. 

A really bad habit of mine is relying on the history to do things,
Rather than spend the initial cost of effort to write a shell function and remember it, I'm constantly using Bash's tab completion and history functions to avoid having to expend any effort organizing my patterns of use and solving problems. Everything I do is an ad hoc solution. 

With Plan 9 I'm forced to do it right, because the people who implemented the OS religiously keep the cruft out. But, as Dave said, it's a long and arduous process whose benefits are hardly apparent when you set out(i.e. "why should I use du and awk to walk a tree when you could use find" is the first question that hits every new user familiar with Unix). You only realize in hindsight.

The problem comes when people who are used to the ad hoc way of doing things like this come in contact with Plan 9. 

The majority of the people on this list are so immersed in the tools philosophy that it's like breathing to them. The intracacies and nuances are natural to them.

When you pit this mastery against the sense of entitlement  that comes from mainstream systems you get conflicts like this. People expect canned solutions not pointers to *how* to solve things. 

But this is all obvious and has been discussed to death in the archives.

The real issue is how to solve this problem. 

I propose that we emphasize the tools philosophy to clarify the underlying philosophy and justifications in introductions to new users. It's already there really, but scattered in other explanations rather than dealt with systematically. 

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think this is what
ESR and Jim Choate mean when they talk about a lack of documentation --but not in the way they think. Plan 9 *is* sufficiently documented assuming that you make it past the first "conceptual hump", understanding the basis of the tools philosophy. 

One way of solving this would be to use existing books like the 
 "Unix Programming Environment" or "Software Tools" with their code updated for Plan 9. I think a lot of people avoid those books because they don't believe they need to learn ancient Unix or Ratfor. And it's a shame because they miss the conceptual forest for the trees of individual system implementations and cruft. 

I'll gladly contribute anything I can if we can agree on a roadmap.

Noah

Re: [9fans] insularity

[ron minnich]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Noah Evans wrote:

> A really bad habit of mine is relying on the history to do things,
> Rather than spend the initial cost of effort to write a shell function
> and remember it, I'm constantly using Bash's tab completion and history
> functions to avoid having to expend any effort organizing my patterns of
> use and solving problems. Everything I do is an ad hoc solution.

there's some real humor here, in some sense, as this is what we did in the 
70s with Unix V6, before stuff like history. Some things have come full 
circle.

ron

Re: [9fans] insularity

[andrey mirtchovski]

Very well put Noah, thanks. 

I would like to add a quote by somebody well respected outside our
little community (the quote itself regards Plan 9 so it's on-topic).
In my opinion it explains fairly well what most of us (who have
migrated to Plan 9 not going through the 1127 school of thought
education) were like when we first came:

	Ok, sure, I admit a little bias.  I'm used to treating the OS as
	an enemy that, given a chance, does everything wrong :-)

You can find the original discussion in the comp.os.plan9 archives on
groups.google..

andrey

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Dave Lukes]

> When you pit this mastery against the sense of entitlement  that comes
> from mainstream systems you get conflicts like this. People expect
> canned solutions not pointers to *how* to solve things.

Yes, and maybe we should emphasise this more.

Personally, I feel that if people don't "get it",
then maybe that's their problem?

> The real issue is how to solve this problem. 

Well, to some extent it solves itself ...

If people aren't willing to invest the effort,
then they don't get the benefit.

Remember, I'm in a far worse position than a lot of 9fans:
I have no plan9 system, but nonetheless, I think I "get it".

> I propose that we emphasize the tools philosophy to clarify the underlying philosophy and justifications in introductions to new users. It's already there really, but scattered in other explanations rather than dealt with systematically. 

Well, OK, but I would have thought that was a "given" ...

> One way of solving this would be to use existing books like the 
>  "Unix Programming Environment" or "Software Tools" with their code updated for Plan 9. I think a lot of people avoid those books because they don't believe they need to learn ancient Unix or Ratfor. And it's a shame because they miss the conceptual forest for the trees of individual system implementations and cruft. 

> I'll gladly contribute anything I can if we can agree on a roadmap.

Well, I still think that,
since I "get it" with the available information, there's no problem!

	Dave.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[rog]

> I have no plan9 system, but nonetheless, I think I "get it".

just thinking you "get it" doesn't necessarily mean anything when it
comes to *actually* doing things with the system.  it's only then that
the ugly (or not) realities start to bite.

i really don't see how you could justify saying the things you
previously said when you haven't actually tried to do this stuff
yourself.

i read plan 9 manuals for years before i ever got my hands on a
working system - and when i did, i quickly realised that it's very
easy to imagine a system that's significantly different from the one
which actually exists...

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Dave Lukes]

> just thinking you "get it" doesn't necessarily mean anything when it
> comes to *actually* doing things with the system.  it's only then that
> the ugly (or not) realities start to bite.

And the pretty ones too.

> i really don't see how you could justify saying the things you
> previously said when you haven't actually tried to do this stuff
> yourself.

Because I understand how the system's supposed to work.
Getting bogged down in "how do I get an azerty keyboard to work?"
is not what it's about.

> i read plan 9 manuals for years before i ever got my hands on a
> working system - and when i did, i quickly realised that it's very
> easy to imagine a system that's significantly different from the one
> which actually exists...

Yes, and it's equally easy to imagine a system that's significantly
the same too ...

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Don Bailey]

 > And the pretty ones too.

Well, I think you're all jerks! Let's get back
to the main point of the day, Guinness!! Today,
that's *my* tall pretty one...

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Don

Re: [9fans] insularity

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 338 bytes --]

To get people in the mood of the day:

Welcome to the St Patrick's day virus!

Since we've found people to be much sociable on this
day we're trying a new generation of viruses.  To
take part do the following:

1) forward this message to at least two friends
2) delete all your files

Have a Guinness and thank you for playing.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2311 bytes --]

From: Don Bailey <dbailey27@ameritech.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] insularity
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4058969E.9060000@ameritech.net>

 > And the pretty ones too.

Well, I think you're all jerks! Let's get back
to the main point of the day, Guinness!! Today,
that's *my* tall pretty one...

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Don

Re: [9fans] insularity

[boyd, rounin]

> Because I understand how the system's supposed to work.
> Getting bogged down in "how do I get an azerty keyboard to work?"
> is not what it's about.

it is.  internationalisation is _hard_;  i'm yet to see it done right.

if i can't type, i don't code.

& charlie don't surf ...

Re: [9fans] insularity

[bs]

> But this philosophy is lost on people who are used to the windows/consumer Unix world because they're used to solutions that violate the tools method of solving problems. 
This is not a fair statement.
IMO, the beauty of something is to the builder, the experience of 
something is to the user.
A porsche driver cares about how it feels to drive, not the geometry of 
the suspension or the degrees of freedom used to tune it.

Similary, one can keep the innovations of plan9 under the covers and 
deliver something an end user might enjoy(even if it means tab 
completion). (this is from someone who has contributed zippo (other than 
noise) to this list).

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Taj Khattra]

> Similary, one can keep the innovations of plan9 under the covers

I am working under the covers, you know... -- Inspector Clouseau

Re: [9fans] Novice question - run as other

[Geoff Collyer]

Regrettably auth/none is undocumented.  This sometimes happens.  You
do however have the sources and grep, and /sys/src/cmd/auth would have
been an obvious place to look.

I had been reserving judgement on whether or not you (David Tolpin)
really are the ungrateful punk that you appeared to be in all your
other interactions on 9fans.  I have now concluded that you are.  Many
of us have tried to help you, most of us civilly, and you've responded
like a spoiled snot-nosed kid who thinks he's entitled to answers and
that we have some obligation to provide them.  So I'm now deleting
your messages on contact.

[9fans] insularity

[rog]

> So I'm now deleting your messages on contact.

oh for f***'s sake!

ok, so david tolpin has been a bit verbose, (and we're naturally
suspicious that his deep involvement with XML implies a fundamental
lack of taste) but when it comes down to it, he's has actually dived
in there and done stuff.

most newcomers to plan 9 don't get further than booting the damn
thing.

i think people that have been involved in this stuff for a long time
forget the distance between plan 9 and other systems.  yes, most stuff
is documented (often by implication), but having someone to talk to
that knows about the system makes all the difference.  i think all
david's questions have been perfectly acceptable, and i wouldn't have
thought twice about answering them had they been asked by someone
across the room.

this system *needs* people with some energy to spare, otherwise it'll
continue to decline the way it has been since the great scattering from
bell labs.  if this is the way we treat someone who appears to have
some energy and inclination, then i've no hope at all.  i'm ashamed to
be part of this group.

> If you can't get over this initial conceptual hump,
> then fuck off back to CrapOS and leave us alone.

*cringe*

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Aharon Robbins]

In article <6a2483a3e86ca91902d7199212d02f44@vitanuova.com> you write:
>i think people that have been involved in this stuff for a long time
>forget the distance between plan 9 and other systems.  yes, most stuff
>is documented (often by implication), but having someone to talk to
>that knows about the system makes all the difference.  i think all
>david's questions have been perfectly acceptable, and i wouldn't have
>thought twice about answering them had they been asked by someone
>across the room.
>
>this system *needs* people with some energy to spare, otherwise it'll
>continue to decline the way it has been since the great scattering from
>bell labs.  if this is the way we treat someone who appears to have
>some energy and inclination, then i've no hope at all.  i'm ashamed to
>be part of this group.

Hear, hear!  Well said.

Arnold

Re: [9fans] insularity

[suspect]

i stared at the last few messages to David with my mouth
open. Those were not very kind words to be spoken to
someone who has shown interest, willingness to actually
contribute and most importantly, humility.  Repeated humility.

I'm just an observer on this list, but feel obligated to speak up.
I'm also a dot/neato user. Thanks for the work. Thanks again.

cheers,


On Mar 17, 2004, at 11:22 AM, rog@vitanuova.com wrote:

>> So I'm now deleting your messages on contact.
>
> oh for f***'s sake!
>
> ok, so david tolpin has been a bit verbose, (and we're naturally
> suspicious that his deep involvement with XML implies a fundamental
> lack of taste) but when it comes down to it, he's has actually dived
> in there and done stuff.
>
> most newcomers to plan 9 don't get further than booting the damn
> thing.
>
> i think people that have been involved in this stuff for a long time
> forget the distance between plan 9 and other systems.  yes, most stuff
> is documented (often by implication), but having someone to talk to
> that knows about the system makes all the difference.  i think all
> david's questions have been perfectly acceptable, and i wouldn't have
> thought twice about answering them had they been asked by someone
> across the room.
>
> this system *needs* people with some energy to spare, otherwise it'll
> continue to decline the way it has been since the great scattering from
> bell labs.  if this is the way we treat someone who appears to have
> some energy and inclination, then i've no hope at all.  i'm ashamed to
> be part of this group.
>
>> If you can't get over this initial conceptual hump,
>> then fuck off back to CrapOS and leave us alone.
>
> *cringe*
>

Re: [9fans] insularity

[lucio]

> i stared at the last few messages to David with my mouth
> open. Those were not very kind words to be spoken to
> someone who has shown interest, willingness to actually
> contribute and most importantly, humility.  Repeated humility.

I'm going to add my voice to Pip's and especially Rog's.  I envy
David's ability to get things done in a totally novel environment (I'm
also a recent dot convert, thank you, David) and I have little trouble
sympathising with David's queries, understanding that not everyone is
as comfortable with English idioms as the Bell Labs ex-convicts are.

As for those who have spent time on this list just to deplore David's
behaviour, I believe they should put a bit more effort, in a
considerably less anglocentric fashion, to understand where some of us
come from and what we are able to contribute.

It is a shame that I should waste more bandwidth to do this.

++L

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Dave Lukes]

> I'm going to add my voice to Pip's and especially Rog's.  I envy
> David's ability to get things done in a totally novel environment (I'm
> also a recent dot convert, thank you, David) and I have little trouble
> sympathising with David's queries, understanding that not everyone is
> as comfortable with English idioms as the Bell Labs ex-convicts are.

It's not to do with english and queries,
it's to do with understanding the system.

As soon as I have time, I'm going to sweat reading the kernel
right the way through, just so I understand what's going on. 

> As for those who have spent time on this list just to deplore David's
> behaviour, I believe they should put a bit more effort, in a
> considerably less anglocentric fashion, to understand where some of us
> come from and what we are able to contribute.

I think you're being a bit unfair.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Fco.J.Ballesteros]

> As soon as I have time, I'm going to sweat reading the kernel
> right the way through, just so I understand what's going on. 

Although *a*lot* out of date, the Notes on the Plan 9 Kernel Sources
(see google) may help you to do that.

hth

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Dave Lukes]

> Although *a*lot* out of date, the Notes on the Plan 9 Kernel Sources
> (see google) may help you to do that.

I know, and I'm looking forward to that as well,
thanks, Nemo!

Cheers,
	Dave.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Geoff Collyer]

davel touches many of the relevant points.  I have no objection to
David asking questions, per se (though some of them did suggest a real
lack of effort, but that's not fatal).  I have no problem with David's
use of English, or anybody else's.  I'm glad to see others taking an
interest in Plan 9.

What I did, and do, object to is a persistently snarky attitude among
someone asking for help, particularly in response to answers intended
to be helpful and responsive to his questions, as the people answering
them understood them.  His apparent perception that we're all trying
to insult him (`I knew that.', `I knew that.') probably doesn't help
his attitude, but I don't believe that these apparently-perceived
insults were intended as insults.  If he can't find a way to get along
with people here without irritating large numbers of us frequently,
it's going to be an unpleasant experience for him and many of us.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[David Presotto]

It's too hard to read a person's attitude through mail
messages. Give it a rest please.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[boyd, rounin]

> If he can't find a way to get along
> with people here without irritating large numbers of us frequently,
> it's going to be an unpleasant experience for him and many of us.

as per usual, geoff is bang on the money.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[boyd, rounin]

> I'm going to add my voice to Pip's and especially Rog's.  I envy
> David's ability to get things done in a totally novel environment (I'm
> also a recent dot convert, thank you, David) ...

get things done?  cat /dev/noise

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Dave Lukes]

> oh for f***'s sake!

Careful: you're next:-).

> ok, so david tolpin has been a bit verbose, (and we're naturally
> suspicious that his deep involvement with XML implies a fundamental
> lack of taste)

Not the deep involvement:
I and at least one or 2 other people on this list have used XML,
but don't evangelise about it 'cos we know it's barfious.

>  but when it comes down to it, he's has actually dived
> in there and done stuff.

Cool, which means he's halfway there.

> most newcomers to plan 9 don't get further than booting the damn
> thing.

Which means that some people don't want to talk to them,
which is fine too!


> i think people that have been involved in this stuff for a long time
> forget the distance between plan 9 and other systems.

No, I continually thank my non-existent deity for that distance.

>   yes, most stuff
> is documented (often by implication), but having someone to talk to
> that knows about the system makes all the difference.

Yes, but expecting them to answer _all_ your questions is not useful.

>   i think all
> david's questions have been perfectly acceptable, and i wouldn't have
> thought twice about answering them had they been asked by someone
> across the room.

Fine.  We differ.

> this system *needs* people with some energy to spare, otherwise it'll
> continue to decline the way it has been since the great scattering from
> bell labs.

I don't see the benefit in involving people who don't "get it":
we'll end up with linux again.

Also, if plan9 dies, then maybe it will be down to bad luck,
or maybe it deserves to, because it ain't good enough.
If that is the case, then, in another few years,
some bright spark in a room somewhere will say,
"I know, let's write our own ..." and history will repeat itself.

>   if this is the way we treat someone who appears to have
> some energy and inclination, then i've no hope at all.

We treat everyone the same around here ...

>   i'm ashamed to
> be part of this group.

Then don't be.

I admit to being ashamed of my own brutality at times,
but the alternative (spoonfeeding people)
is far, far worse.

> > If you can't get over this initial conceptual hump,
> > then fuck off back to CrapOS and leave us alone.

> *cringe*

I stand by it:
if you're not willing to do the brainwork to understand the system,
don't use it.  It ain't Windows.

	Dave.

Re: [9fans] insularity

[Latchesar Ionkov]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 05:53:13PM +0000, Dave Lukes said:
> I admit to being ashamed of my own brutality at times,
> but the alternative (spoonfeeding people)
> is far, far worse.

What is wrong with just ignoring the questions that require the spoonfeeding 
you are not willing to provide?

I also fully agree with Rog. 

	Lucho

Re: [9fans] insularity

[vdharani]

rog,

i fully agree with you.

david, please dont feel bad. just ignore any negative comments and proceed
with what you are doing. we need more people into plan 9. i know how
difficult it is to bring people in. i know how easy it is to chase people
out. i wouldnt want a nice OS to disappear and show it to my grandchildren
in museum.

regards
dharani

>> So I'm now deleting your messages on contact.
>
> oh for f***'s sake!
>
> ok, so david tolpin has been a bit verbose, (and we're naturally
> suspicious that his deep involvement with XML implies a fundamental
> lack of taste) but when it comes down to it, he's has actually dived in
> there and done stuff.
>
> most newcomers to plan 9 don't get further than booting the damn
> thing.
>
> i think people that have been involved in this stuff for a long time
> forget the distance between plan 9 and other systems.  yes, most stuff
> is documented (often by implication), but having someone to talk to
> that knows about the system makes all the difference.  i think all
> david's questions have been perfectly acceptable, and i wouldn't have
> thought twice about answering them had they been asked by someone
> across the room.
>
> this system *needs* people with some energy to spare, otherwise it'll
> continue to decline the way it has been since the great scattering from
> bell labs.  if this is the way we treat someone who appears to have
> some energy and inclination, then i've no hope at all.  i'm ashamed to
> be part of this group.
>
>> If you can't get over this initial conceptual hump,
>> then fuck off back to CrapOS and leave us alone.
>
> *cringe*

Re: [9fans] insularity

[boyd, rounin]

> oh for f***'s sake!

i see you can't spell.