[9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Laura Creighton]

Do you guys not know how many of these things there are?
If you are running Red Hat 7.0 then stop what you are doing
immediately.  the gcc is entirely hosed.  there are so many
bugs you cannot compile anything with it.  there are supposed
to be a patch for it but what do you say to a bunch of people
who hold fast to the we do not do bug fixes in relweases whihc
are  or are not matched with some sort of regular expression?!  Who 
think that its bettter to have a major release where the _compiler_
doesn't work and ... no time for rant  got too much code to write myself.

Which abominable gcc in which abominable linux are you trying to
explode and do you need that particular poison or will any
carcinogen do?

Majorly pissed
Laura

welcome to my world gang.  do you understand better why Boyd loses it from 
tiome to time?

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, andrey mirtchovski wrote:

> boyd uses openbsd as he himself said here. i suppose the compiler is not his
> major woe :)
> 
> now, how many people are interested in seeing opengl for plan9? i have that
> weird idea that it may look great and actually have bragging value :)
> 
> pros? cons? 

I'm pro!


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

              "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"

                               Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[andrey mirtchovski]

boyd uses openbsd as he himself said here. i suppose the compiler is not his
major woe :)

now, how many people are interested in seeing opengl for plan9? i have that
weird idea that it may look great and actually have bragging value :)

pros? cons? 

andrey


On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Laura Creighton wrote:

> welcome to my world gang.  do you understand better why Boyd loses it from 
> tiome to time?

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "Laura Creighton" <lac@cd.chalmers.se>
>
> the gcc is entirely hosed.

yup.  a good metric is probably the number of command line options.
it has too many and that's a really bad sign.  yeah, i've installed
the damn thing to please boneheaded fools on their road to ruin.  as
soon as it comes apart who's gotta fix it?

rm would.

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "andrey mirtchovski" <aam396@mail.usask.ca>
>
> boyd uses openbsd as he himself said here. i suppose the compiler is not his
> major woe :)

don't assume.  i installed the damn thing but i DON'T use it because
i want a terminal.  i'm sick of admining unix systems that smell really
bad (they all do).  i had some idea to do something with it, but i gave
up in disgust.

another kernel to hack -- oh, wow...  at least with datakit you could
do it from home instead of adb and a la-120 printed stack backtrace.

i'm sick of this wretched industry.

workstations and NFS were one of the worst debacles of the '80/90s.

linux just propogated the virus, without understanding the problem.

no disk, no fan ...

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Theo Honohan]

On Saturday 2 June, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> 
> now, how many people are interested in seeing opengl for plan9? i have that
> weird idea that it may look great and actually have bragging value :)
> 
> pros? cons? 

Well, getting *an* OpenGL implementation running shouldn't be hard --
the SGI reference implementation is now open, along with Mesa, and
they're both in C.  A GLUT implementation for Rio would be the next
thing.

I can see it being tougher to integrate cleanly with Rio and /dev/draw
(and I expect that some degree of integration would be required to allow
hardware acceleration).  If you want to create a /dev/draw style
"/dev/gl" file interface, you'll probably find yourself redesigning and
reimplementing the GLX protocol, with a few incompatible changes.  (The
GLX protocol is documented in the GLX source archive available from
SGI's Open Source site.)  There's quite a bit of reinvention of the
wheel required for you to be able run GL applications across the network
in a plan 9 way.

Theo

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[Ryan O'NEil]

Yes RedHat made the unfortunate choice of releasing gcc 2.96, 
which the gcc group explicitly stated was not meant for release.
Same goes for Mandrake and who knows what others.  *sigh*

lac@cd.chalmers.se (Laura Creighton) wrote in message news:<200106021653.SAA25202@rackham.cd.chalmers.se>...
> If you are running Red Hat 7.0 then stop what you are doing
> immediately.  the gcc is entirely hosed.  there are so many
> bugs you cannot compile anything with it.

Re: [9fans] which linux! which gcc!

[anothy]

//how many people are interested in seeing opengl for plan9?

there was a discussion some time in 1998 (i think) about doing
something about Inferno's tk. moving to OpenGL was one of the
options proposed. of cource, they took the (also very reasonable)
route of just investing more time and energy into tk. the
unfortunate part was that - as with much of what the BU tried to
do - it either never got done, or got done poorly.

personally, i think it'd be a good addition to either system.
-α.