From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:24:56 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <465c929faaa98f1a87f669d26a1549d4@plug.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <284949CC-81F5-4791-91C1-13357BC23E7D@9srv.net> References: <703b2539-027e-4f9f-a739-00b59f6d3d82@v28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <20101113192425.GC22589@nibiru.local> <284949CC-81F5-4791-91C1-13357BC23E7D@9srv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 development Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7d0acd76-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > You may well be right that there's too much momentum behind > autoconf/automake to change GNU. But that doesn't mean it's the right > thing to do, or something sensible people ought to choose to > participate in. to be a bit more blunt, the argument that the tyrrany of the auto* is unstoppable and will persist for all time is persuasive. so i choose at this point to get off the gnu train and do something that affords more time for solving problems, rather than baby sitting tools (that baby sit tools)+. i believe "no" is a reasoned answer, when faced with an argument that takes the form of "everybody's doing it, and you can't stop it". i suppose everybody has had that ex-boss. i also think it's reasonable, as anthony points out, just to avoid shared libraries, if that's the pain point. sure, one can point out various intracacies of bootstrapping gnu c. but i think that's missing the point that the plan 9 community is making. many of these wounds are self-inflicted, and if side-stepping them gets you to a solution faster, then please side step them. there's no credit for picking a scab. please do take a look at plan9ports. it's portable across cpu type and os without fanfare, or even much code. plan 9 is similar, but much simpler, since it doesn't need to fend off the os. - erik