Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers?

[Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>]

Excuse my interruption, please. I probably understand less than half of
this exchange, certainly none of the in-jokes, and I know Eric Van
Hensbergen might not exactly like compliments from a lowlife but whatever:
you rock Mr. Van Hensbergen!

And some stuff for troll-clubbers to club me with:

1. What is 9P's edge over text-based protocol X?

2. If somebody learnt from 9P, created their own protocol, and called it
FUSE II, what are you going to do? You know, _if_ FUSE has follies today it
doesn't it will have follies tomorrow.

3. If what you deem folly keeps on recurring perhaps it has a cause. If it
has a cause and if it comes out from among rather intelligent people then
the cause may simply be a _rationale_. Have you tried finding out the
rationale behind the current state of protocols/software you label
"horrendously complicated?"

4. Intelligence is not something peculiar to 9fans and the creators of Plan
9. Simplicity of design is not something peculiar to 9P. It could appear
out of the blue any day with the latest protocol X. Since protocol X is
supposedly new it will break nothing but if it manages to get a foothold by
its designers _not_ acting up the way the average 9fan does when 9P is
minimally criticized then 9P will be out the window forever. Do you have a
solution to that?

5. Widespread public and industry acceptance of a protocol is vital. More
vital is the realization that acceptance is often given by people who have
thoughts of their own and are probably not zombies for "enemy" X of 9P.
What a 9fan deems best might not be the best for somebody else and they may
have good reason for their stance. Sitting in here calling Linux Lunix
won't make Plan 9 any better known. At least do that on some LUG so that
they get to know Plan 9 by the fine trolls it nurtures.

--On Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:33 PM -0600 Eric Van Hensbergen
<ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
> wrote:
>>>>  If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we
>>>> should be using an XML based protocol extension.
>>>
>>> Corporate acceptance was always the measure of success. it's the old
>>> measure. And it works, unless you don't need to eat.
>>
>> i'm pretty sure that's not how plan 9 got
>> written in the first place.
>>
>> aiming for corporate acceptance doesn't seem
>> to me to be aiming high enough.
>>
>
> Given the number of people writing good code for Plan 9 and/or Inferno
> now versus 15 years ago it seems like aiming for "higher than
> corporate acceptance" doesn't seem to be enough either.
>
>             -eric
>