Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected - Plan9 ; perhaps a little introspection is needed. was it that they didn't like the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last year's effort? or maybe they just want to spread their love. > They took GNU ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

  1. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    perhaps a little introspection is needed. was it that they didn't like
    the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
    year's effort?

    or maybe they just want to spread their love.

    > They took GNU Hurd, but not plan9? Terrorists!
    >
    >> Since we didn't hear back, and our name is not on the list
    >> of accepted projects, it appears that Google rejected our
    >> application.
    >>
    >> Of course we'll try to figure out why and how we can do
    >> better next year.








  2. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
    > perhaps a little introspection is needed. was it that they didn't like
    > the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
    > year's effort?
    >
    > or maybe they just want to spread their love.
    >


    last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
    effort made by the organization.


  3. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    > last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
    > effort made by the organization.


    that, by definition, is an organizational problem.



  4. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:

    > last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
    > effort made by the organization.


    I am going to assume you know this because you know the % of failed
    projects for Plan 9, you know the % failed for all other projects, and
    you know that all other projects had a lower % failed than Plan 9, and
    all these were renewed? Or, better, someone at Google told you?

    Otherwise, if this is idle speculation, we've got the Venti thread for
    that one :-)

    ron


  5. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    The required introspection is about how we function as an open source
    community, I suspect.
    We don't fit the usual open source mold, and generally cooperate
    quite poorly with one another (with some notable exceptions).
    Our projects aren't particularly well integrated, and don't lead in a
    coherent directions.

    Probably they made the right decision, unless we choose to address
    these issues. We might not *want* to address these issues, but we
    should be aware of them.

    Paul

    On 18-Mar-08, at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:

    >
    > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Skip Tavakkolian
    > <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
    >> perhaps a little introspection is needed. was it that they didn't
    >> like
    >> the proposals this year or that they didn't like the outcome of last
    >> year's effort?
    >>
    >> or maybe they just want to spread their love.
    >>

    >
    > last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
    > effort made by the organization.
    >


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

    iD8DBQFH3/a0pJeHo/Fbu1wRAruXAKC28cziwYbjKzMuv3+XA2LVjzTXNACguAV6
    OquW4Z+MVv4lJ5C5nnqt9nI=
    =s+eo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    > The required introspection is about how we function as an open source
    > community, I suspect.

    This, i regard rather suspiciously.

    > We don't fit the usual open source mold, and generally cooperate
    > quite poorly with one another (with some notable exceptions).
    > Our projects aren't particularly well integrated, and don't lead in a
    > coherent directions.

    By design, our filesystems are all about cooperation.
    There are a lot of different, often unrelated projects based on plan9,
    for this is a whole operating system and not some fancy ipod. Plan9
    aims to be coherent on an other layer.

    > Probably they made the right decision, unless we choose to address
    > these issues. We might not *want* to address these issues, but we
    > should be aware of them.

    Choosing hurd can't be right.
    We should be aware of the facts, Perhaps the issues are not as trivial
    as I may put them, but your consequences are too wide in my view.
    Even though I agree with you about plan9 being very different from
    other systems, keep in mind, that in other context this kind of
    individuality is often seen positively.
    And again, take a look at hurd, they didn't get anywhere, allthough
    being in that crazy open source mold.

    --
    hiro


  7. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
    proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
    certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG


  8. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, ron minnich wrote:
    > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Iruata Souza wrote:
    >
    > > last year's big problem was the number of failed projects, not the
    > > effort made by the organization.

    >
    > I am going to assume you know this because you know the % of failed
    > projects for Plan 9, you know the % failed for all other projects, and
    > you know that all other projects had a lower % failed than Plan 9, and
    > all these were renewed? Or, better, someone at Google told you?
    >
    > Otherwise, if this is idle speculation, we've got the Venti thread for
    > that one :-)
    >


    this is the written down result of my fast introspection.
    in fact, if you read it again you might note i didn't say anything about gsoc08.

    iru


  9. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On 3/18/08, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
    > interested students should perhaps submit their plan 9 gsoc project
    > proposals to the Hurd. i hear we have a connection there through a
    > certain Thomas Bushnell, BSG


    serious, there are still enaugh organizations, which could need a
    filesystem interface. a hgfs (mercurial) would be nice.

    --
    hiro


  10. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:

    > serious, there are still enaugh organizations, which could need a
    > filesystem interface. a hgfs (mercurial) would be nice.


    What's the big win here?

    ron


  11. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    > What's the big win here?
    There is no *big* win. It would be of good use for me.

    --
    hiro


  12. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:54 AM, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:
    > > What's the big win here?

    > There is no *big* win. It would be of good use for me.


    I can see the attractiveness in one sense. I'd like to have
    an (e.g.) git file system such that to compare trees I did not type
    all these commands I can't remember ... just do a diff between top
    level directories, have several versions available without having to
    do git co etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

    But what would you use it for? How would you access mercurial functions?

    I'm more curious than anything.

    ron


  13. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected

    > I can see the attractiveness in one sense. I'd like to have
    > an (e.g.) git file system such that to compare trees I did not type
    > all these commands I can't remember

    That's mostly all it...
    I also thought about commiting by copying the working directory to the
    virtual directory "store". But this would be no improvement, so I
    would rather concentrate on reading access first. One could of course
    add other functionality to the file server later, and use it together
    with small scripts for a native command interface.
    I'm rather unexperienced with plan9/inferno yet, so don't take this too serious.
    Originally i think uriel came up with this idea before last year's gsoc.

    --
    hiro


  14. Re: [9fans] It looks like our GSoC application was rejected


+ Reply to Thread