[9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[kokamoto]

I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page,
and build those on my Debian stable machine.
I also read the paper of vx32 last week.
Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with
games/mahjongg on that virtual machine.
Thank you very much Russ!

However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
neccessary, shouldn't ?

Kenji

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

I believe the reasoning is as such:

Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.

Use Linux as your driver repository... this is an approach used by some
microkernel systems like L4.

Dave

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:28 AM, <kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp> wrote:

> I downloaded Russ's 9vx and vx32 source tree Ford's web page,
> and build those on my Debian stable machine.
> I also read the paper of vx32 last week.
> Now, everything goes fine, and got a fun to play with
> games/mahjongg on that virtual machine.
> Thank you very much Russ!
>
> However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?
>
> Kenji
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1128 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>
> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.

if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
rid of plan 9?

in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.

i don't mean to use a broad brush.  there are good reasons
for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use
a linux hosting company.

but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as
a device driver.

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

> if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
> rid of plan 9?
>


Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
for people to consider using the real thing.

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Charles Forsyth]

> Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
> tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
> for people to consider using the real thing.

yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME, GCOS, ...
which didn't do all that much for you.  now the underlying system has all the fun.
(unless you need to program it.)

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[LiteStar numnums]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1639 bytes --]

x: proc options(main);
 put skip list('What's Wrong with PR1ME?');
 put skip;
end x;
/* sorry, couldn't resist */
I mean, you make it sound like the wonderful combination of Fortran IV, PL/I
(PL/1G, PL/P & SPL), Pascal & BASIC (BASICV too) weren't enough!
Sheesh, this is perfectly resonable:
OK, plp B_test0.pli
[PLP rev 19.2]
BEGIN PHASE-1
BEGIN PHASE-3
0001 ERRORS  (PL/P  rev 19.2)
MAXIMUM ERROR SEVERITY LEVEL=3
TRANSLATION FAILED.
ER,

Ok, ok, I'll stop. Honest.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
wrote:

> > Think of 9vx and lguest and friends as "software tools". "Software
> > tools" did a lot to popularize the ideas of Unix, and made it easier
> > for people to consider using the real thing.
>
> yes, but that was when the underlying system was System 370, VMS, PRIME,
> GCOS, ...
> which didn't do all that much for you.  now the underlying system has all
> the fun.
> (unless you need to program it.)
>
>
>


--
"By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty
famine. All things change. Air penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the
joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called incense."

"Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonises
with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite
tension like that of the bow and the lyre."

"This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or
man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling
itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures"
-- Heraclitus

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2093 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>> I believe the reasoning is as such:
>>
>> Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
>
> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
> on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
>

That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used.
I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can
be setup to pass-through device access  to network, disk, audio,
whatever.  The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially
pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules
the roost.  Linux just deals with device access.

I don't really think this undermines Plan 9 in any way unless you are
keen on optimizing device performance -- in which case you do indeed
most likely want native.  But my point is, the Linux "I/O layer" is
essentially non-administered.  It doesn't need user accounts, an IP
address, or even much of a file system (just enough to boot Plan 9
like in THX).

              -ericvh

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

>> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
>> on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
>> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
>>
>
> That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used.
> I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can
> be setup to pass-through device access  to network, disk, audio,
> whatever.  The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially
> pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules
> the roost.  Linux just deals with device access.

you didn't explain the part where you avoid admining the
linux host.

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[a]

there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think
eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get
a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own
access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full
network information. especially if your linux has been gutted so you
don't have "helpful" demons running around in the background, this
can be a fairly light - and front-loaded - burden. non-zero, to be
sure, but not what you'd expect from a normal production linux box.
anthony

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

> there's a certain level of administration required, sure, but i think
> eric's point was that the level of administration required just to get
> a good VM environment up is pretty minimal. if your VM has its own
> access to disk and network, you needn't have linux users or full
> network information. especially if your linux has been gutted so you
> don't have "helpful" demons running around in the background, this
> can be a fairly light - and front-loaded - burden. non-zero, to be
> sure, but not what you'd expect from a normal production linux box.
> anthony

are you taking security updates into account.  they're the #1 biggest
timewaster for me and they're not front loaded.

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[a]

i believe i am, but perhaps your experience is different from
mine. certainly there's less stuff to worry about patches for
if you've got less stuff on the box. again, the idea is not to
take ubuntu (or whatever) and stick a VM on top, but rather to
strip the linux down to just what's needed to run the VM, like
THNX. far fewer security updates, although i suppose one could
argue it'll be more manual, ad hoc, and time consuming per
update. i've not done enough of that to really say.

i'm certainly not trying to convince you to run linux. if you
don't have a pre-existing compelling reason to run it, don't.
all i (and i believe eric) am saying is that if you *do* have
such a reason, a tailored VM environment can reduce the burden
quite a lot.

anthony

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>>> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
>>> on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
>>> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.
>>>
>>
>> That's not entirely true depending on the virtualization layer used.
>> I'm not experienced yet with vx32, but for example, lguest/kvm/xen can
>> be setup to pass-through device access  to network, disk, audio,
>> whatever.  The logical partition running Plan 9 can be essentially
>> pinned to a processor (or processors) and on that processor it rules
>> the roost.  Linux just deals with device access.
>
> you didn't explain the part where you avoid admining the
> linux host.
>

I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all
tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup
lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network.
Admin done.

Alternatively I could do something clever like kvmfs or xcpu or some
combination thereof an boot arbitrary images on partitions on the
cluster of drones -- but the most simple example is the one given
above.

          -eric

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[William Josephson]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all
> tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup
> lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network.
> Admin done.

I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major
pain with most of the common distributions.  I guess it has
been a while since I last looked: how do you make it work
reliably with updates without effectively rolling your own
distribution?

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM, William Josephson <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:03:45PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>> I setup every machine on my network to tftpboot (BIOS), and they all
>> tftpboot a kernel+ramdisk which has everything necessary to startup
>> lguest/kvm plan9 and passthrough I/O requests to the disk/network.
>> Admin done.
>
> I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major
> pain with most of the common distributions.  I guess it has
> been a while since I last looked: how do you make it work
> reliably with updates without effectively rolling your own
> distribution?
>

I didn't do the grunt work on this one, my friends in Germany built
the setup to run xcpu, but it can be adapted just as easily to run the
KVM drones.  Mind you, the "distribution" in this case is hardly
anything -- just the necessary tools to start lguest/kvm and get
tun/tap working properly to get to the underlying network.  You should
effectively be able to build this by hand with any distro.

        -eric

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, William Josephson <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu> wrote:

> I've found setting up diskless boot with Linux to be a major
> pain with most of the common distributions.

yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org

for a reasonable system, used at sandia on a 4096-node cluster.

for even lighter weight, see the xcpu.org tutorial on onesis+xcpu.
xcpu2 now works almost the same as the cpu command (yes, cpu as in
plan 9 cpu).

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Steve Simon]

> yes, they all suck. Try this: onesis.org

Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried
building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps)
and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating
you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using
v9fs rather than nfs.

It wouldn't buy you much, except a linux environment thats
easier for plan9 users to manage and support.

With a following wind you might even get cinap's rather amazing
linuxemu to use it as a runtime environment (shared libraries etc).

I suspose you could start going mad and build a special gethostbyname()
for your linux environment which understands how to talk to /net/dns etc.
sort of p9p upsidedown...

just silly ideas which I should probably have kept to myself.

-Steve

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[David du Colombier]

> Ok, it would be a load of work but has anyone tried
> building a linux filesystem on a plan9 server (/linux perhaps)
> and PXE booting a linux cpu server off it? Extrapolating
> you could even get the server to mount its root filesystem using
> v9fs rather than nfs.

I had the same idea few days ago. I find it quite interesting.

But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?

--
David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[don bailey]

> But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
> on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?
>

The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files
whose contents are another file's path. As long as the kernel
knows how to interpret it I'm sure it'd be fine. Look at the
inverse: Plan 9 on Linux simply sees a Linux symlink as what
ever the symlink points to. For example, in your 9vx tree
do: `ln -s sparc64 v9` and run 9vx.Linux.

D

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM, don bailey <don.bailey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But Linux use symlinks. Is there a way to make symlinks
>> on the Plan 9 filesystem and make them accessible with NFS?
>>
>
> The kernel probably doesn't care. Symlinks are just files
> whose contents are another file's path. As long as the kernel
> knows how to interpret it I'm sure it'd be fine. Look at the
> inverse: Plan 9 on Linux simply sees a Linux symlink as what
> ever the symlink points to. For example, in your 9vx tree
> do: `ln -s sparc64 v9` and run 9vx.Linux.
>

you would think it would work that way. You would think that the
server, upon hitting a symlink, would just indirect through it and all
would be well. And it's true, the kernel doesn't care. But userspace
does. (http://www.linuxinsight.com/ols2006_why_userspace_sucks_or_101_really_dumb_things_your_app_shouldnt_do.html)
is really right.

When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems
over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code
that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even
recall all the places, but they're there. And things break if you
mount and don't have symlinks.

Which is why I put readlink etc. in my v9fs, and why the .U version is
in today's linux kernels.

thanks

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems
> over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code
> that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even
> recall all the places, but they're there. And things break if you
> mount and don't have symlinks.
>
> Which is why I put readlink etc. in my v9fs, and why the .U version is
> in today's linux kernels.
>

And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
RedHat behaves weirdly.  It really never does end.

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:

> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
> RedHat behaves weirdly.  It really never does end.
>

unless we all get smart and go into banking.

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

>> And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
>> RedHat behaves weirdly.  It really never does end.
>>
>
> unless we all get smart and go into banking.

then you'll have fun chasing a different set of
endlessly changing rules.

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or
> > RedHat behaves weirdly.  It really never does end.
> >
>
> unless we all get smart and go into banking.
>
> ron
>
> I could have been a lumberjack.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 730 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
wrote:

> > I believe the reasoning is as such:
> >
> > Linux has more drivers than Plan 9, therefore Plan 9 should run on linux.
>
> if that's the argument, wouldn't it make sense to get
> rid of plan 9?


I'm just saying I would never consider running linux on plan 9.  I can't
think of a single reason I'd ever want to do that, because, linux is so much
easier to get installed on real hardware than plan 9.


>
> in this model, all plan 9 does is add an extra layer of goo
> on top of linux.  it's not like you can avoid admining
> linux by hiding on a vm running on linux.


If the goal was to avoid admining linux then one shouldn't run linux.
 That's not much of an argument.  May as well run 9vx on FreeBSD :-)  Same
argument holds.


>
> i don't mean to use a broad brush.  there are good reasons
> for running plan 9 in a vm on linux -- like you want to use
> a linux hosting company.
>
> but linux didn't get where it is by using windows as
> a device driver.


Nope Linux got where it is by apache.


>
>
> - erik
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1925 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?

i'm not sure if this was the authors' intent, but making plan9 easily
accessible to a larger group (mac, linux and someday windows users)
will make plan9 more popular.  vxlinux under plan9 will be useful,
but only to us 9fans.

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[matt]

Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>  vxlinux under plan9 will be useful, but only to us 9fans.
>
Isn't that good enough reason?

Russ Cox
> Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use
> Linux but must use Plan 9.  I am sure such people exist,
> but I feel no sympathy toward them.  ;-)


I don't ask for sympathy but having a Linux that ran on Plan 9 would be
a useful tool. I need to have Gimp knocking about or an IMAP client for
Gbs of mail.
Do you think the task would be Herculean ?

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Russ Cox]

> I don't ask for sympathy but having a Linux that ran on Plan 9 would be
> a useful tool. I need to have Gimp knocking about or an IMAP client for
> Gbs of mail.

If linuxemu can run Opera, I would imagine you can
use it to run Gimp too, with some work.  If you want
an imap client, you could compile the p9p upas/fs
which can easily handle large remote IMAP mailboxes.

> Do you think the task would be Herculean ?

Procrustean or Sisyphean, yes.  Herculean, no.

Russ

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

> upas + imap4d on sources (/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/nupas)

wrong path.

	/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/src/nupas

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

On Thu Jul 10 15:06:09 EDT 2008, ben@flyingwalrus.net wrote:
> am very interested in nupas, as i have a truely insane number of mails
> in my imap store.
>
> when i use nupas/fs to mount my imap account, i get the following:
>
> term% nupas/fs -f/imaps/imap.mailhenge.com/ben@hosthenge.com
> imap4mbox /imaps/imap.mailhenge.com/ben@hosthenge.com

any luck with the changes?

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:

> If linuxemu can run Opera, I would imagine you can
> use it to run Gimp too, with some work.  If you want
> an imap client, you could compile the p9p upas/fs
> which can easily handle large remote IMAP mailboxes.

speaking of which, did Cinap's  fixes for the gs segment make it in so
we have thread local storage a la linux now?

>
>> Do you think the task would be Herculean ?
>
> Procrustean or Sisyphean, yes.  Herculean, no.
>

it's all greek to me, but I think it's just plain crazy :-)

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Charles Forsyth]

> speaking of which, did Cinap's  fixes for the gs segment make it in so
> we have thread local storage a la linux now?

plan 9 provides that portably as the stack segment,
and provides some reserved space in it via _privates [see exec(2)].
(it might be helpful to have some conventions for its use.)

or did you mean in linuxemu?

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>> speaking of which, did Cinap's  fixes for the gs segment make it in so
>> we have thread local storage a la linux now?
>
>
> or did you mean in linuxemu?

yes. linuxemu needed a kernel change IIRC and I was wondering if that was in.
ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[cinap_lenrek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

Ok, here is the thing...

Here are 2 versions of linux libc tls and notls. (Current linux distries just
ship with the tls version i think, but here may be exceptions)

TLS is a libpthread thing that is heavily wired together with libc
on linux. (just do an ldd on something like ls)

TLS uses the two free segment registers %FS and %GS as a way for a thread
to access its thread local storage area. (the parent allocates some memory
and sets up an segment descriptor that points/translates to this memory
(it makes set_thread_area() syscall todo this)

to implement this syscall, i needed a way to change entries in the
global descriptor table in the kernel. here is some experimental
driver (/dev/tls) but i'm not sure if its correct. also it buys you not very mutch
to have it yet, because the new pthread library also needs a futex implementation
to be usefull. the old notls libc works without that syscall and doesnt need
any modification to the plan9 kernel.

but... i think in the near future TLS support is important and for that i
need some kernel support to change segment descriptors on a process
basis.

If i understand vx correctly, it also needs a way to change segment
descriptors and even needs to be able to change its %DS, %CS, %SS registers
to it.

cinap

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2815 bytes --]

From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:36:22 -0700
Message-ID: <13426df10807100936l14a08d45n714428b086897d65@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>> speaking of which, did Cinap's  fixes for the gs segment make it in so
>> we have thread local storage a la linux now?
>
>
> or did you mean in linuxemu?

yes. linuxemu needed a kernel change IIRC and I was wondering if that was in.
ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

futex?

so do we need a futtocks device?

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Kernel Panic]

ron minnich wrote:
> futex?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex
> so do we need a futtocks device?
>
i think this can be implemented without
any additional devices... wtf?!
> ron
>
cinap

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[ron minnich]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Kernel Panic <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
> ron minnich wrote:
>>
>> futex?
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex
>>
>> so do we need a futtocks device?
>>
>
> i think this can be implemented without
> any additional devices... wtf?

what the futex? I was mainly joking. I was dumbfounded to see the
futex cancer spreading everywhere.

ron

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[erik quanstrom]

> ... or an IMAP client for Gbs of mail.

not for much longer.  there is a testing version of
upas + imap4d on sources (/n/sources/contrib/quanstro/nupas)
that might work for you.

i have not changed the upas/fs interface so older
versions of ned, Mail and imap4d continue to work,
but i have included modified versions of ned, Mail
and imap4d that are careful not to force upas/fs
to read or download every message, as the standard
clients are wont to do.

to that end mail directories (mdirs) are supported
with one unix from line + verbatim message per file.
you'll need the all of nupas installed if you intend
to use mdirs for mail delivery, but the modified upas/fs and
clients are all you'll need for big remote mailboxes.

- erik

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[Russ Cox]

> However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?

I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use
Plan 9 but, for various reasons, must use FreeBSD or
Linux or Mac OS X.

Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use
Linux but must use Plan 9.  I am sure such people exist,
but I feel no sympathy toward them.  ;-)

Russ

Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?

[a]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 461 bytes --]

Well, there's also people like me: I prefer and am able to use
Plan 9 the bulk of the time, but have a few particular tasks I
need Linux for. It'd be nice to be able to stick the Linux box
in a little jail.

I'm very glad 9vx exists: I now have Plan 9 on my OS X laptop.
I'd like Lvx to stick on my Plan 9 cpu servers. As it stands, I'll
be converting one of my older cpu servers into a linux box in a
few weeks. That makes me feel unclean.

Anthony

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2190 bytes --]

From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9?
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:27:59 -0400
Message-ID: <20080708172610.ADA9E1E8C2B@holo.morphisms.net>

> However, I have somewhat confused mind.... Why it's not Linux vx for
> Plan9?   I have no intention to make it bad, however, if we believe
> Plan 9 is better than Linux, then Linux vx for Plan9 should be more
> neccessary, shouldn't ?

I wrote 9vx for people like me, who would prefer to use
Plan 9 but, for various reasons, must use FreeBSD or
Linux or Mac OS X.

Linux vx for Plan 9 would help people who prefer to use
Linux but must use Plan 9.  I am sure such people exist,
but I feel no sympathy toward them.  ;-)

Russ