From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Anthony Sorace In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:54:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <33e2329fe3abd2d9d6341fe723cf76e2@brasstown.quanstro.net> <25BC4401-C0DC-404D-8CF2-91AF643D6715@orthanc.ca> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] Vanilla Plan 9 or one of the flavors? Topicbox-Message-UUID: aea9f3dc-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:40 , Aram H=C4=83v=C4=83rneanu = wrote: >> and the 9front guys have everything in a hg repo >> on Google Code >=20 > 9front exists precisely because the 9front authors considered Plan 9 > closed. Using it as an example of openness is the ultimate in > hypocrisy. That is not what hypocrisy means. I'm not (here) making any assertions as to the motivations behind = 9front, nor am I attempting to analyze them. The point is that all three systems have methods for submitting changes, tracking what's changed in the system, and pulling bits out. The post I responded to claimed Bell Labs never took outside changes and that 9atom and 9front required some sort of all-or-nothing buy-in. All of that is false.