On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Uriel<urie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plan 9 is *not* an open source project
>
I once attended a talk where a statement was made about open source
projects being defined by their ability to fork in non-destructive
manners as a sort of evolutionary response. Plan 9's source code is
available, and anyone that thinks they can do a better job is welcome
to fork it, repackage the distribution, mirror it, support it, and so
forth. People will naturally flock to better solutions. This is the
very heart of open source. Conforming to Google's idea of open
source, or the Linux Community's model, or the GNU religion is in no
way essential to open source. What is essential is that the community
works out what works best on its own and evolves through forking and
merging and different approaches which work best at different times.
Forks are already in place. Inferno is very much a fork of Plan 9,
Octopus is a fork of Inferno. Brucee has his own fork (or perhaps
forks?) of Inferno. p9p and 9vx are also forks after a fashion.
These forks often contribute fixes and improvements back to respective
parents, and some times they don't. The secret plan 9 super secret
society fork is yet another evolution, actually primarily motivated by
bitter, disruptive, and ultimately destructive community members. All
things are valid, evolution only moves forward with action. We have
our fork, we are proceeding with it as we best see fit -- that's our
prerogative. Unhappy? Restless? Bored? Go forth and fork -- IMHO,
this is a research operating system, its here to play with, learn and
explore. If you aren't interested in those things, you'll be
disappointed or worse.
-eric
