[9fans] X Window System

[9fans] X Window System

[pavlovetsky]

What would be the difficulties if someone wishes to port X to Plan 9
and wants to see it running independently of rio? Any ideas, from
technical point of view?

Re: [9fans] X Window System

[Lorenzo Fernando Bivens de la Fuente]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

I has already been done.

Look for it in "sources"...

(But I don't see a good reason to use it/ do it again)

Cheers!

On 9/24/07, pavlovetsky@gmail.com <pavlovetsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What would be the difficulties if someone wishes to port X to Plan 9
> and wants to see it running independently of rio? Any ideas, from
> technical point of view?
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 807 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] X Window System

[tlaronde]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:14:14AM +0000, pavlovetsky@gmail.com wrote:
> What would be the difficulties if someone wishes to port X to Plan 9
> and wants to see it running independently of rio? Any ideas, from
> technical point of view?

This is not a technical advice but more a theoretical one. I'm actually
rewriting the 2D interface for KerGIS programs with an eye on want I
want/need: a distributed system with computing (may be heavy in the
KerGIS case) on CPU nodes, and interface handling (exclusively
arithmetic i.e. only ALU intrusctions) on terminals (the connection
between the terminal and the CPU being exclusively 1D commands, i.e. the
graphical interface is only a graphical mean to select commands and
data, there is only one version of the computing programs with a
text/line oriented language [batch]).

With this is mind, one sees that X is the wrong answer since the
interface handling (the menu abstraction, the heavy stuff done by the
toolkits) is not on the terminal but on the CPU (if one uses the
"distributed" nature of X). This is not its place, and its really "old"
conception: a mainframe with dumb terminals.

I hope the main idea is clear enough, I mean IMHO providing a "toolkit"
plan 9 based would be far better and probably in terms of work
far easier than porting the whole X world to Plan 9.

In my case, with a huge beast---but that is becoming lean since with the
principles above I suppress tons of redundant spaghetti code---,
rewriting the graphical interface is a benefit on Unix/X11 and will
allow porting to pure plan 9 absolutely easily (with there the full
benefit of "distributed"; it will be the same on Unix, but not
delegating "distribution" to X, but taking care at it by the
architecture of the code).

On another side, the X11 people want now to include the graphical server
in the OS and wonder about the X protocol (but AFAIK haven't identified
that the "distribution"/connexion is not done in the right place). That
is, the future of X11 is more towards plan 9 concepts so "following" X11
is a bit weird ;)

I hope these thoughts have some interest for what you have in mind.

Cheers,
--
Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                 http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C

[9fans] Re: X Window System

[pavlovetsky]

On Sep 24, 12:11 pm, lorenzobiv...@gmail.com (Lorenzo Fernando Bivens
de la Fuente) wrote:
> I has already been done.
>
> Look for it in "sources"...
>
> (But I don't see a good reason to use it/ do it again)
>
> Cheers!
>
> On 9/24/07, pavlovet...@gmail.com <pavlovet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What would be the difficulties if someone wishes to port X to Plan 9
> > and wants to see it running independently of rio? Any ideas, from
> > technical point of view?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, I know that the port exists and it is running inside rio, isn't
it?

You can't compile it nowadays:

making all in programs/Xserver/Xext...
rm -f shape.o
cc -c -O   -I../include -I../../../X11 -I../../../include/extensions  -
I../../..  -DBRAZIL -DOBJTYPE$objtype -D_BSD_EXTENSION -
D_RESEARCH_SOURCE -DSHAPE  -DFUNCPROTO=11    shape.c
/sys/src/X11/programs/Xserver/Xext/shape.c:485[stdin:25175]
incompatible type: "VOID" for op "DOT"
/sys/src/X11/programs/Xserver/Xext/shape.c:497[stdin:25187]
incompatible type: "VOID" for op "DOT"
cc: cpp: 8c 226911: error
*** Error code 1

Stop.

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Steve Simon]

> Yes, I know that the port exists and it is running inside rio, isn't
> it?

it runs inside rio if you start it inside rio, start it instead of rio and
it will use the whole display (as would acme, sam or catclock :-).

> You can't compile it nowadays:

I last compiled it against the 3rd edition but this should not make
any real difference; from memory the only real changes in the compiler since
then are the option of link time type checking and improvements to 64bit
int support. I suggest you explore the 'incompatible type: "VOID" for op "DOT"'
error, it may simply be somthing in your ape environment is not
set up as x11 needs, (though it may be somthing less tractable of course).

The biggest problem with this package is the limited plan9
driver - only 8bit pixmaps are supported and use on plan9 displays with
depths other than 8bits is very slow. This could be fixed but it would
probably be more sensible to update the port to the current X11 release.

-Steve

[9fans] Re: X Window System

[app]

So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
possible?
                               
How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?

Or is the real problem really the GUI? Or something else, like the GNU
toolchain needed to compile a typical FOSS project?

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Kernel Panic]

app wrote:

>So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
>libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
>best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
>possible?
>  
>
Go! look at these 100 best known programs... Look at the code and the
dependencies... its not that easy/beauty.

>How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
>whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
>implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
>  
>
That gets you the same big old programs lunix has... In the end, you dont
port the programs to Plan9 but the other way arround... and then you
are where anything started.

>Or is the real problem really the GUI? Or something else, like the GNU
>toolchain needed to compile a typical FOSS project?
>  
>
No, its not just the GUI.
One of the strongest thinks of Plan9 are the simple and small libraries.
The small code makes it possible for a small comunity to maintain it.
Even a single person can read and understand most of the code.
In contrast to the GNU userland. Here are thousands of programers out 
here to
fix and hack on these zillion-lines-always-changing GNU code. Here are huge
dependency graph for all that stuff. Its mutch work to port, fix, 
maintain...
I doubt a single person/small comunity can do it... And what do you get 
if you are done?
Firefox? Just a webbrowser for all that?
Here is abaco... its very small, fast and has a nice UI. It has 
limitations but why not
improve it then? Its small... you can actually understand and fix the 
code or
ask the author.
Its mutch more fun to make native Plan9 applications. If that gets you 
to implement
some kind of UI(-library) that turns out to be usefull in other programs 
that will
be great.
IMHO... If you are serious with Plan9... eat Plan9 dogfood... start 
using it on
daily basis... see what missing for YOU... start writing your programs 
yourself with
the tools that Plan9 gives you. In many cases... this will result in 
programs
that are mutch more simpler and smaller.
If you do it you will note what Plan9 lacks and maybe provide a solution 
that
further programers can profit of.

cinap

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[lucio]

> In the end, you dont
> port the programs to Plan9 but the other way arround

This deserves a fortune slot, in my opinion.

++L

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[erik quanstrom]

it's ironic that the object-oriented guys have such
a tangled web of external dependencies.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Charles Forsyth]

> it's ironic that the object-oriented guys have such
> a tangled web of external dependencies.

i think that's absolutely typical of most large o-o things i've
had to read: not just external dependencies, but a real tangle
of snippets of code in overridden methods in a cascading class
hierarchy.  hard for reasoning; bad for maintenance.   i suppose it must be easier
to write (although i've never found that to be true myself),
and that's why it's so popular.  i don't really know. it's finally a mystery to me.
but we digress...

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1012 bytes --]

On 10/1/07, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>
> > it's ironic that the object-oriented guys have such
> > a tangled web of external dependencies.
>
> i think that's absolutely typical of most large o-o things i've
> had to read: not just external dependencies, but a real tangle
> of snippets of code in overridden methods in a cascading class
> hierarchy.  hard for reasoning; bad for maintenance.   i suppose it must
> be easier
> to write (although i've never found that to be true myself),
> and that's why it's so popular.  i don't really know. it's finally a
> mystery to me.
> but we digress...
>
> If OO stuff were everything it needed to be to begin with, then Aspect
Oriented Programming and other techniques would not have been necessary.
Hell even the Aspect Oriented "weaving" of code between or overriding
existing methods was around in lisp a long time before it was called Aspect
Oriented programming.

Perhaps we should all be schemers or lispers instead...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1455 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Enrico Weigelt]

* app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
> possible?

Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool. 

But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily 
restructured and cleaned up.

> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?

Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved 
in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Kernel Panic <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
> app wrote:
> 
> >So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
> >libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
> >best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
> >possible?
> > 
> >
> Go! look at these 100 best known programs... Look at the code and the
> dependencies... its not that easy/beauty.

Yeah, the autoconf "philosohpy" is probably what it makes so bad.
People seem to think it's better to workaround bugs or even bad design
and no one feels responsible to clean up things in the right place.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[erik quanstrom]

> Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool. 
> 
> But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily 
> restructured and cleaned up.

this is great.  i can't resist the irony of this. 

portablity is for people cannot [sic] write new programs.
	- linus torvalds (people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html)

- erik

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[ron minnich]

> > But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
> > restructured and cleaned up.

which is easier than writing them from scratch?

Geez, we just keep retreading the same ground.

how many times a year do we have this discussion? Rather than talk
about doing it, it might be easier to try and do it first.

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[marina]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

> * app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
>> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
>> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
>> possible?
>
> Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool.
>
> But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
> restructured and cleaned up.
>
>> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
>> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
>> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
>
> Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved
> in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O
>

Why not start with something a bit smaller. ...like making SSH2 work. We 
use plan9 for work a lot and not having SSH2 working is a large hassle.

Might even throw some money in the pot for someone to finish that project
as the crypto application is a bit beyond me.

--- Marina Brown (tsygry)



>
> cu
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
> 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
> Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
> 	http://patches.metux.de/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[andrey mirtchovski]

i'll finish the sshv2 port of libssh i was working on. send the money to me :)

On 10/1/07, marina@surferz.net <marina@surferz.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> > * app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
> >> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
> >> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
> >> possible?
> >
> > Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool.
> >
> > But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
> > restructured and cleaned up.
> >
> >> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
> >> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
> >> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
> >
> > Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved
> > in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O
> >
>
> Why not start with something a bit smaller. ...like making SSH2 work. We
> use plan9 for work a lot and not having SSH2 working is a large hassle.
>
> Might even throw some money in the pot for someone to finish that project
> as the crypto application is a bit beyond me.
>
> --- Marina Brown (tsygry)
>
>
>
> >
> > cu
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
> >       http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
> > Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
> >       http://patches.metux.de/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2127 bytes --]

On 10/1/07, marina@surferz.net <marina@surferz.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> > * app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
> >> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
> >> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
> >> possible?
> >
> > Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool.
> >
> > But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
> > restructured and cleaned up.
> >
> >> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
> >> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
> >> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
> >
> > Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved
> > in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O
> >
>
> Why not start with something a bit smaller. ...like making SSH2 work. We
> use plan9 for work a lot and not having SSH2 working is a large hassle.



I just asked about this the other day...  Wondering where it is  :-)

I'm not sure what's left to be done to make it go...


Might even throw some money in the pot for someone to finish that project
> as the crypto application is a bit beyond me.



I think bounties for Open Source projects are neat, until someone decides
not to maintain it :-)

However, they can sometimes get the ball rolling in a way that lets novices
help with maintenance after the "experts" have moved on.

Dave

> --- Marina Brown (tsygry)
>
>
>
> >
> > cu
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
> >       http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
> > Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
> >       http://patches.metux.de/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3448 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2090 bytes --]

On 10/1/07, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i'll finish the sshv2 port of libssh i was working on. send the money to
> me :)



How much you think it's worth?  :-)

I'm curious as to how far along it is :-)


On 10/1/07, marina@surferz.net <marina@surferz.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> >
> > > * app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
> > >> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
> > >> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
> > >> possible?
> > >
> > > Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool.
> > >
> > > But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
> > > restructured and cleaned up.
> > >
> > >> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure
> the
> > >> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
> > >> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
> > >
> > > Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved
> > > in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O
> > >
> >
> > Why not start with something a bit smaller. ...like making SSH2 work. We
> > use plan9 for work a lot and not having SSH2 working is a large hassle.
> >
> > Might even throw some money in the pot for someone to finish that
> project
> > as the crypto application is a bit beyond me.
> >
> > --- Marina Brown (tsygry)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > cu
> > > --
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
> > >       http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
> > > Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
> > >       http://patches.metux.de/
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3294 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[andrey mirtchovski]

> How much you think it's worth?  :-)

0

> I'm curious as to how far along it is :-)

search the 9fans archives :)

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 247 bytes --]

On 10/1/07, andrey mirtchovski <andrey@lanl.gov> wrote:
>
> > How much you think it's worth?  :-)
>
> 0
>
> > I'm curious as to how far along it is :-)
>
> search the 9fans archives :)
>

Dangit!!!  Oh so fruitless that was last time.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 539 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[ron minnich]

Andrey, I hope you will restructure the code completely, and be sure
to use transparent accessor functions, spontaneous self-organization,
and make sure the code is on the edge of criticality.

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[andrey mirtchovski]

i promise you that we'll look at the edge of criticality from below,
as it speeds away at 9.78ms¯² :)

On 10/1/07, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrey, I hope you will restructure the code completely, and be sure
> to use transparent accessor functions, spontaneous self-organization,
> and make sure the code is on the edge of criticality.
>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> Andrey, I hope you will restructure the code completely, and be sure
> to use transparent accessor functions, spontaneous self-organization,
> and make sure the code is on the edge of criticality.

bingo!

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[marina]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, andrey mirtchovski wrote:

> i'll finish the sshv2 port of libssh i was working on. send the money to me :)
>

I don't have much money to spare but make that a reality and put where
to send and i will.

--- Marina (tsygrl)


> On 10/1/07, marina@surferz.net <marina@surferz.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>>
>>> * app <porttikivi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> So, if not X, then how about some higher (or eperhaps lower?) layer
>>>> libraries (qtk? Qt? Gecko?) ported so that porting the 10 (or 100)
>>>> best known FOSS packages (whatever they are) would become more
>>>> possible?
>>>
>>> Porting libs like gdk to plan9 would be cool.
>>>
>>> But you shouldn't forget that many libs should be heavily
>>> restructured and cleaned up.
>>>
>>>> How about a project to take something like Firefox and restructure the
>>>> whole sw so that best modules would be kept and other modules re-
>>>> implemented /dev/draw way and Rio way?
>>>
>>> Huh, that's an really HUGE plan. I'm a little bit involved
>>> in moz and know what I'm talking about ;-O
>>>
>>
>> Why not start with something a bit smaller. ...like making SSH2 work. We
>> use plan9 for work a lot and not having SSH2 working is a large hassle.
>>
>> Might even throw some money in the pot for someone to finish that project
>> as the crypto application is a bit beyond me.
>>
>> --- Marina Brown (tsygry)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> cu
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
>>>       http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
>>> Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
>>>       http://patches.metux.de/
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>

Re: [9fans] Re: X Window System

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

erik quanstrom wrote:
> portablity is for people cannot [sic] write new programs.
>         - linus torvalds (people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html)

No, portability is to avoid having to reinvent every single wheel.