Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question

[hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>]

is the p9f website not a wiki? trying to fix this i managed to 9p
mount something, but didn't find the index page...

whoever added the miller and 9legacy links might be able to help us out?

On 4/2/21, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was unnecessarily complain-y and overly political. "It would be nice
> for p9f.org to also link 9front" is all I really meant here. I'm sorry for
> this message, and appreciate that p9f is both nascent and nobody's actual
> job.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --dho
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 22:25 Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been pretty silent on the list for years, and I hope that as a
>> former collaborator on foundation efforts and former Plan 9 GSoC
>> co-admin and mentor, and assurance that my silence hasn't been
>> ignorance, that my opinion still has weight with folks in p9f.
>>
>> I have to admit a bit of surprise that the foundation will accept GSoC
>> projects for 9front without linking 9front on its page. Additionally,
>> the about page doesn't describe any of the 9front efforts. While I
>> have not been a fan of some interactions between 9fans and 9front over
>> the years, these politics seem largely antiquated, and my impression
>> is that the 9front community "political jokes" are (at least in the
>> past 5 years) much less acerbic, if present at all. The system itself
>> is the most active in the community, with bugfixes, new hardware
>> support, and new (purist-compatible) features not present in any other
>> "fork".
>>
>> I'm not a fan of what's starting to look like some weird form of
>> historical revisionism. Functionality-wise, 9front is tip-of-tree.
>> Realistically, 9front is tip-of-tree. This is the third or fourth
>> thread asking why 9front has no mention on p9f.org. Why does 9front
>> have no mention on p9f.org?
>>
>> Unlike Lucio, I have no desire to encourage nor coordinate
>> consolidation of forks. I don't think that's necessary. The ecosystem
>> is fractured, and has been for nearly 2 decades. I don't think that's
>> a problem. We can admit that we're a fractured ecosystem, and embrace
>> that. P9f seems to do that by accepting funds for GSoC contributions
>> to 9front, without any acknowledgement of 9front's presence outside of
>> soliciting project ideas. Without assigning malice or blame, this is
>> not correct. It should be easy to see how this is politically
>> problematic.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> --dho
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not
>> > respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that
>> > nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally
>> > subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly
>> > a critical event in Plan 9's existence.
>> >
>> > On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9fans@sirjofri.de> wrote:
>> > > I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e
>> > > release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is
>> > > 4e
>> > > plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front,
>> > > which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe
>> also
>> > > the system which supports most hardware, maybe.
>> > >
>> > I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I
>> > make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely,
>> > I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of
>> > solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just
>> > symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap
>> > may well recall this exchange.
>> >
>> > The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call
>> > 9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path
>> > of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment
>> > disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into
>> > Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy.
>> >
>> > I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
>> > fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
>> > at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as
>> > possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the
>> > viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a
>> > research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted).
>> >
>> > Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for
>> > contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared
>> > product will help attaining such an objective. That two different
>> > paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but
>> > officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of
>> > redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence.
>> >
>> > We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the
>> > Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and
>> > totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me.
>> >
>> > There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now,
>> > where my fears will be allayed or solidified.
>> >
>> > Lucio.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> > 9fans: 9fans
>> > Permalink:
>> https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mc2c17a3454be4b4912515379
>> > Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M88c3d4a2736ee21761a57434
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription