From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87snbjtmvo.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: , <200111130202.VAA14696@augusta.math.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:34:28 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 205f95d6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 cross@math.psu.edu (Dan Cross) writes: > In article you write: > >My only real sadness is that the discussion is seen as a problem and not > >an opportunity to address the emotional aspects of peoples computer usage. > > That's because probably 95% of the people on this list are interested in > the technology and not debates surrounding the merits of this license or > that. > > What does this have to do with Plan 9? Have you forgotten the history of the thread? Go back and look at the first message posted under this subject (which was mine). You'll see that it addresses a relevant question that was being addressed at the time I posted it. It's pretty obvious to me that "How Plan 9 is licensed" is a relevant topic for the Plan 9 list. It's also pretty obvious to me that "reasons why Plan 9 ideas haven't caught on" is a relevant topic: it's not one that I started, by the way. It's also clear that some people think that this list is only for people who think Plan 9 is the bee's knees; that all things Plan 9 are the best in the world, and that all other things are a waste of time and effort. But not everyone here has that kind of attitude. Thomas