Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

[Don Bailey <don.bailey@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3561 bytes --]

It's not gaslighting to ask for evidence. I was here, I remember the
complains with Fossil. But to what degree was that /actually/ Fossil? What
degree was it the configurations, the hardware, the firmware, the
consistency of management/usage? What investigations have gone into those
bits, as well. Setting up and running Fossil requires some knowledge and
maintenance. It is not unlike a classic Volkswagen. They run great if you
constantly bother with them.

It isn't gaslighting to ask for those details. And if we are a code-centric
community, as we claim to be, point to the code that shows me it's
problematic and unstable. Have you found it? And I don't say that to be
coy... where can we demonstrably show that Fossil is volatile? What data
backs that up?

So this is, again, the problem I have with what has occurred on this list.
Anything certain parties here disagree with is brushed off as trolling or
"gaslighting" or any other such term that rationalizes dismissal. Let's be
prescriptive, instead.

D


On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:40 AM Kurt H Maier via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:20:48AM -0400, Don Bailey wrote:
> > But please document them and provide rationale/evidence for their
> removal.
>
> You've been on this list a while.  You should remember therefore that
> Fossil was a *constant* topic of debate here for *years*.
> Specifically, people kept reporting that Fossil had beshit their data,
> and other people deemed that a skill issue and insisted Fossil was fine.
> As bug fixes trickled out, Fossil continued to be fine, and people's
> data kept getting corrupted.  Maybe Fossil is fixed now!  Maybe it
> isn't!  It's not worth finding out, and the situation was never helped
> by the "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" crowd refusing to take bug
> reports -- and actively attacking bug reporters.
>
> So, the backstory of Fossil on 9fans is what led to it getting deleted.
> Asking for 'evidence' is just more of the same gaslighting that happened
> on this very list.
>
> > How was the lack-of-stability tested? To what degree was it tested?
> etc.
> 
> Not how it works.  The burden of support is on the distributor.  Part of
> forking software is, when it breaks, people come knocking on your
> door/mailing list/ircnet complaining that "your" software ate their
> computer.  We *knew* Fossil was unreliable, so continuing to ship it in
> that state was idiotic.  Removing it was an act of self-defense and/or
> housekeeping, depending on how militant you like your metaphors.
> 
> Meanwhile, since the defossilization of 9front, Fossil itself continued
> to receive attention.  It sounds like the sp9sss dropped the ball on
> coordinating some of that, but we are assured that Fossil is great now.
> The problem is: we were assured Fossil was great then, too, especially
> when it wasn't.  Therefore it is the burden of the Chamber of Fossil
> Fraternity Et Exuberance to prove that it is stable, and test it to such
> a degree that it's worth considering again.  The rest of us are tired of
> driving in that circle.
> 
> You can even store it on our sources server, or put the code on our git9
> repo host.   We don't hate Fossil users.  We just don't want to take
> responsibility for it.
> 
> khm

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tad3dc0c93039a7d2-M59ed369714a5058464d950cc
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5290 bytes --]