From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 23:32:41 +0100 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdec050318104f8d6f10f Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e205710c-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --f46d043bdec050318104f8d6f10f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 7 May 2014 22:38, wrote: > . Some people > (not knowing the full situation) offered advice about publicly > available amd64 kernels and were shot down. > they weren't "shot down", but saying use MY distribution over here, or use MY distribution over here, didn't directly help with the problem of starting from sources (which was actually closer to the original question). normally, it wouldn't really matter, and i'd have kept out of it, but in this case it did. i'm fairly sure nothing warranted the subsequent comments that owe more to dan brown than reality. (come to mention it, i did Dan Brown a favour last year, unwittingly.) --f46d043bdec050318104f8d6f10f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 7 May 2014 22:38, <sl@9front.org> wrote:
. Some people
(not knowing the full situation) offered advice about publicly
available amd64 kernels and were shot down.

the= y weren't "shot down", but saying use MY distribution over he= re,
or use MY distribution over here, didn&= #39;t directly help with the problem
of starting from sources (which was actually clo= ser to the original question).
normally, it= wouldn't really matter, and i'd have kept out of it,
but in this case it did. i'm fairly sure nothing warranted the subseque= nt
comments that owe more to dan brown than= reality.
(come to mention it, i did Dan Br= own a favour last year, unwittingly.)
--f46d043bdec050318104f8d6f10f--