On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to use > our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users and > don't assume that they have this same level of care for authenticity and "pure" code origins as you.
You should read more carefully what I replied to the new user. It had nothing to do with licenses at all. I drew a path which spares him the frustrations during the time where he gets used to the system. And using 9vx is one way to set one step after the other. I'm wondering why you don't adjust it so that 9front can also be run there. As far as I can tell from once experimenting the reason why 9front doesn't run are your extensions to the kernel interface. 9vx is by far a better more plan9-ish way to virtualize under linux. But thats your decision. The path I suggested is the simplest one at least I think so. It takes less than 30 min to have a running plan9 installation without any problems arising from file servers without the problems of networking or data exchange. If you really believe that the path I suggested was a bad one or isn't simpler than directly using on of the plan9 distros I would really be surprised. This new guy has to learn rc, acme, rio, about plan9.ini about mouse shortcuts in acme. And do you really believe doing this directly on 9legacy or 9front is simpler than by using 9vx ? If this guy reaches the 4.step he will find his own path to whatever fork he pleases. So where exactly was my reply mindless ? ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te051f230f2656bbb-M71a22bd1f90c60a96961d626 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
