From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1535997499.784480.1495319464.0DE4D730@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <CAOk9ws1kxHh5MhRVwTMwPjM763++VmFMda-vefk8SZFt8y=OTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFSF3XNKZu1V=nYSo0vce0FvngjHMZpTtAh_yqb7S-yQt7MPXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJQ9t7gNAywpPgfb1ywaxhBwCZU+VgaZRLp1F1tTGzyWL3o7aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F102EB67-833D-4E79-BECB-DE6B1692963C@gmail.com>
	<1535997499.784480.1495319464.0DE4D730@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2018 12:51:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQ9t7jVeY4QUu0uFd5kL0ePXL6MheTJdL5B9cx49KM_5BnQBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?"
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0d07772-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 9/3/18, Ethan Gardener <eekee57@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Chris McGee wrote:
>> While the idea that many eyes makes bugs shallower seems to have failed
>> in the world of complex behemoth software it may work here.
>
> I think it worked for a while, but eventually complexity grew beyond even
> the many eyes approach.
>
Could even be that the many-eyes approach encouraged the complexity;
in fact, that could easily be the unintended consequence.

Lucio.