9base in Fedora?

[Bill Nottingham]

Petr Sabata (contyk at redhat.com) said: 
> > > Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users.
> > > There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more
> > > specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though.
> > 
> > The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of
> > common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of "having more stuff"?
> 
> You could say the same about most of Fedora packages.

Right, I do. At some point, you have to decide whether you're producing
an operating system that's an 'integrated set of software ... that just works',
or a huge repository of disparate projects. 

> 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those
> pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot
> of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently.

Yes, but as soon as people start using all of these 'multiple tools to
choose from', you then end up with things like 5 different cryptography
libraries that all need export controlled, and so on. For things that
are core system functionality, it's questionable the value of supporting
multiple different incompatible implementations simultaneously. I mean,
how many implementations of 'basename' do you really need in a distribution?

Bill