From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:58:19 -0400
To: corey@bitworthy.net, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <3d08588b770112900bd908fe02addb93@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <201004181226.59791.corey@bitworthy.net>
References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com>
	<201004170321.36466.corey@bitworthy.net>
	<40bd0b1a996670592133342309147bd3@kw.quanstro.net>
	<201004181226.59791.corey@bitworthy.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Mars Needs Women
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 079a7168-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't think i understand your point at all any more.  more
verbiage isn't going to solve it for me.

two small things, though:

> 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?

plan 9 is used professionally  i work with half a dozen plan 9
professionals.  it is a logical necessity that professionals are
<= all users.

> 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.

you are mistaken.  the general form of the plan 9 c compilers was
set almost a decade before c99.  and if you look at /sys/src/cmd/cc/c99
you will see that the plan 9 compilers have moved toward c99.

your definition of "fighting standards" seems to be not adopting
what everyone else does.  seems awful limiting for a research os.

- erik