On 5/14/24 23:46, Lucio De Re wrote:
> If this comes across as a troll, keep in mind that it is your interpretation that makes it so, a lesson we South Africans are still busy learning, at our country's expense.
>
> I've got Fossil running under 9front; thanks to all those who prodded me (and others). I would be happier knowing that there is a "canonical" version rather than at least two varieties as appears to be the case from the above discussion, but I'd rather not spoil the moment.
>
> My point all along was that if the source (Fossil or other) is not included in the (9front) distribution, a (bad) decision is being made by arbitrary (non)contributors for all the silent participants who may not even know about it. Why would anyone want to play God? Isn't Google bad enough?
The decision was not made by an arbitrary contributor on a whim, it was decided after people maintaining 9front got sick
and tired of dealing with people's data getting minced. Effort was put in to the two (and soon to be three) other
file systems that have had a much better reliability track record. The intent was to nudge people away from
using what was deemed buggy software. If you want this to change then either you or someone else needs to step up and maintain
the software. You are asking for 9front to take on the burden of maintaining an additional old buggy filesystem
because it makes your life a tiny bit easier?

A bit hard to tell from your wording but either you are saying the contributor became a "noncontributor" by deleting
fossil or are you accusing the person who deleted fossil as being generally a "noncontributor"?
If you had spent even 10 seconds looking at the git history you would have seen that the one to pull the plug and
delete fossil was cinap and not some random passerby.

Do you not see the irony here? You, a most certain "noncontributor", are demanding that we do what you want without any intent of doing any of the work yourself.
Why can you not just tar up your files and put them on a supported filesystem? Why are we still having this discussion?

>
> I concede that I didn't know myself what I was looking for (I think what "I" need is for 9legacy to boot, install and possibly run, from a USB stick on any PC hardware, and support both IDE and SATA where present) and my rather vague question was intended to make the details less sketchy. Instead, I got a tirade about what I was or was not ready, willing or able to contribute. Fortunately, that tends to have the desired effect with me, so right now I haven't yet recovered my decades of pretty
> pointless effort, but I know I can do it, with sufficient application, it is no longer lost or teetering on edge of the abyss.

Yes because you are asking for other people to maintain your software for you for free. 9front maintainers do not want to do
this, so the reaction is going to be to do it yourself. I don't know why this is seen as a surprising outcome.

On 5/14/24 18:19, michaelian ennis wrote:
>
>
>
> The flurries of traffic on this list often seem to have a negative tone to me.  It means a lot to me when the conversations are supportive.

I agree, I would like to have positive interactions towards working on solutions to current problems. I would much prefer if conversations
trended towards these type of topics. We seem to have no issue keeping things like this at IWP9 (for the most part).


------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-Me7dff9ba3eef0718fabede05
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription