Re: [9fans] Plan9 Sources Repository

[dante <subscriptions@posteo.eu>]

Usable, not bureaucratic.
And you don't need to invest work.
Just use it if you like it.

Take a look at how it works now. Is this OK with you?

1. "/n/sources/contrib/fgb/root/rc/bin/contrib/install fgb/contrib"
     Why do I need to know about "fgb", why not 
"/n/sources/packages/contrib/rc/bin/contrib/install contrib ?

2. bichued/hg -- 1.0.2
     jas/hg-src
     mjl/hgfs
     stallion/mercurial -- 2.2.3
     Which one now?

3. What about 
http://www.plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/software_for_Plan_9/ ?
     What about the broken links there?
     Can we still save that software?
     Archive.org?

Regards,
Dante

P.S. I knew that I will receive a certain amount of 
conservative/negative answers for questioning the Status Quo.
       I also got some very helpful ones, see Eric.

       Maybe this is the right moment to ask such questions.
       For years, Plan9 was hard to install on common hardware, lacking 
drivers (I tried more than once and failed).
       This all changed with Raspberry Pi.
       There is a good, stable (in the medium/long term) platform that 
costs next to nothing for people to play with Plan9.

       The core system is very elegant and flexible.
       Yet, I have the impression that some potential users may be put 
off by the lack of polish in some other places (installer, ports etc.).
       These potential users are also potential contributors.
       More mass could mean:
       - having a useable (like useable in 2014) Web browser
       - having a useable (or having one at all) video/media player
       - having an SSH2 server (there is one in 9atom, but I didn't see 
it in the stock Plan9). Are you sure it doesn't have the Heartbleed?
       - having a useable driver for touch pads or 2-button-plus-wheel 
mice. I couldn't find a 3-button mouse these days, and  clicking on the 
wheel is awful.
       - up-to-date versions of modern programming languages. I miss 
Ruby a lot.
       Wouldn't that be nice?

8D

On 19.07.2014 17:11, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Are you intentionally trying to make plan  bureaucratic?