From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 06:26:10 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <4d33d2aa22b5c83c1e4348c73d008097@yyc.orthanc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] ports duplication Topicbox-Message-UUID: e3952e20-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > As for the smaller things, I would prefer to see ten different bits of > code that achieve the same end vs. just one. Diversity is good, and a > broader selection of code gives a bigger field to mine for ideas and > concepts. I really don't think that's going to be the problem here, we do not have an excess of ports, we have a problem determining whether a port exists or, and that is where I started thinking about this, we discover by accident that something that could have made Plan 9 more attractive all along has been around a long time already. That can be fixed and so it should. It also helps a lot if one can establish a level of confidence in a port, and having many redundant efforts is the same as encouraging Open Source re-invention, which has both pros and cons, although my minimalist heart suggests that the pros are greatly overshadowed by the cons. ++L