From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:46:48 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <6b60334820caa92abcba5ca05d2fa63e@mikro.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2eac3f6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > so, someone (cinap) does care about the incompatabilities and has addressed them. > i think what you're saying is nobody has gotten this in to the distribution. > fair point. why don't you submit a patch? I ought to, I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it (I'm just a normal Joe, I also fix problems once and hope they don't come back, instead of fixing them at source). I do get your drift and I specifically decline to get drawn into criticising Bell Labs for being slow in accepting patches as an excuse for _my_ inertia, even though I think such criticism is warranted, but not constructive (that also contributed to JMK dropping off 9fans). I also don't yet have a working version of 9front and (feeble excuse) not enough Internet credits to sustain efforts to stay with 9front and 9atom (although I'm sure I could make the additional effort at least once). Feeble, indeed, but let's look beyond that at what would be possible and maybe we can find a way to make it inevitable. ++L