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 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 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 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-M7307d555b6b404c31b2c8ab4 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription