I realize that I'm talking to one of the "holders of the key", but why do
you say that it is not so? The implicit assumption that I think exists here
is that any change of direction will mean a rewrite, but that's not
necessarily true. As I've said before, I believe the architecture is good
and has the flexibility to adapt to many uses; it already provides fluidity.
The "we" is the Hurd community.
At 11:08 AM 4/11/00 -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Gerald Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Which has more or less been a premise of mine. Hurd has the right
> > architecture, and it is pristine and fluid enough that we can mould it into
> > what we want.
>
>It isn't that pristine and fluid anymore.
>
>Who is this "we"?
