Re: [9fans] mk

Re: [9fans] mk

[forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 265 bytes --]

i did everything except actually release it, but that should
happen shortly, once i go round the loop of target systems
once more.

i can tell anyone who needs it where to find a preliminary version.
it's not just mk but includes some other things as well.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1970 bytes --]

To: cse.psu.edu!9fans
Subject: [9fans] mk
Date: 12 Apr 2001 04:53:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20010412045343.634.qmail@infidel.intergate.ca>

on 14 jul 2000, forsyth wrote:
> >>What I'd like to see...  mk for Unix :)  Anyone here who has attempted to port
> >>it over (along with rc of course)?
>
> i should be making a portable version of mk available shortly from a Vita Nuova site.
> it's the version used to build Inferno on Unix and Windows.

has this portable version of mk been released yet ?
thanks

-taj

Re: [9fans] mk

[Boyd Roberts]

<forsyth@vitanuova.com> a crit dans le message news:
20010412145053.0DFFF199F6@mail.cse.psu.edu...
> i did everything except actually release it, but that should
> happen shortly, once i go round the loop of target systems
> once more.

i'd love a version for window's 2000.  i want to write
limbo and have a web browser and the whole deal.  plan 9
can't do that for me.  but inferno on '2000 would do
exactly what i need.

re: charon -- i won't use it.  i've tried and read the code.

i really think [on plan 9] that:

   mk CONF='foobar' foobar

is just stupid or how ever it goes.

in the old days:

    make foobar

would do it even though the concept of 'mk' (9th Ed?) is
much better.  why type stuff twice?  it maybe fine if you
have a qwerty keyboard, but not all of us do, nor want one.

btw: sam doesn't work on '2000.  i suspect it's the 'memory
     [mis]management' on '2000.

Re: [9fans] mk

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> btw: sam doesn't work on '2000.

Both sam and Inferno work just fine on Windows 2000 Professional.

Re: [9fans] mk

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
>
> Both sam and Inferno work just fine on Windows 2000 Professional.
>

yeah, i understand why i have problems.  it's the '2000 memory
[mis]management that kicks in and randomly breaks stuff.

you'd think 64Mb would be enough, but no.  if it take 2+ months
to get a 3com PCMCIA dongle there's no way i'm even going to
go and bother to look for memory -- not in this country.

nor am i gonna let anyone take a vaio apart to upgrade.  to fix
a liquid spill that took out several keys sony vaio service _broke_
the motherboard.  when i shipped it, everything worked except
a few keys.  they told me some bullshit story about how the
liquid had the same properties of hydroflouric acid and that
had killed the motherboard -- nonsense.

64Mb?  that nearly as big as an RM-03 pack.

last time i asked:

    is this [CAT-5] cable crossed or not

some kid started to give me the 3rd degree about what i wanted
to do etc ...  so i told him to answer the question:

    oui ou non

nope too hard.  better off to have an argument.  i think that's
why my french is so good.  years of arguing.

like riggs [_lethal weapon_] says [approx quote]:

    thing get get complex all by themselves

Re[2]: [9fans] mk

[matt]

Hello Boyd,

BR> From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
>>
>> Both sam and Inferno work just fine on Windows 2000 Professional.
>>

BR> yeah, i understand why i have problems.  it's the '2000 memory
BR> [mis]management that kicks in and randomly breaks stuff.

BR> you'd think 64Mb would be enough, but no.

64Mb hahahahah this is Microsoft.
from website

133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness.
2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space

thei sys req. are just like time estimates. Work 'em out, double it
and then add a bit more!

in needed 256mb in my p3-500 to get win2kp happy!

--
Best regards,
 matt                            mailto:matt@proweb.co.uk

Re: Re[2]: [9fans] mk

[Boyd Roberts]

From: "matt" <matt@proweb.co.uk>
>
> 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.
> 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves
responsiveness.
> 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space
>

    700 Mhz Pentium III
    64 Mb ram
    15 Gb disk

unless i was hallucinating i've done a bit of work with
virtual address space / memory management.  'course i
could just be making this up.

--
Boyd Roberts                                          boyd@planete.net

  [trouble] seems to know pretty much where I am, most of the time.

    -- Riggs

Re: Re[2]: [9fans] mk

[William Josephson]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:52:40AM +0200, Boyd Roberts wrote:

>     700 Mhz Pentium III
>     64 Mb ram
>     15 Gb disk
>
> unless i was hallucinating i've done a bit of work with
> virtual address space / memory management.  'course i
> could just be making this up.

I haven't run Windows in a coon's age, but those who insist on running
W2K have told me that even with 128MB core it is somewhat sluggish.  I
imagine it is painful with less.

 -WJ

RE: Re[2]: [9fans] mk

[Richard Elberger]

Without being detail, you can get by with a base installation of pro w/
64mb.  Although tough, I have run (client) test machines with 32mb (don't
try it with 24, you will die).  Depends on the services you are running.  If
you decide to run IIS, then forget it, in my experience you will be dead in
the water with 64mb.  The disk will be begging for mercy.

So after someone gets inspired (enough) to run pview and disk perfmon stats
(sure, even puttin the swapfile on separate disk would change things quite a
bit), I think this discussion becomes very subjective fast.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu [mailto:9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu]On Behalf
Of William Josephson
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:38 PM
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [9fans] mk


On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:52:40AM +0200, Boyd Roberts wrote:

>     700 Mhz Pentium III
>     64 Mb ram
>     15 Gb disk
>
> unless i was hallucinating i've done a bit of work with
> virtual address space / memory management.  'course i
> could just be making this up.

I haven't run Windows in a coon's age, but those who insist on running
W2K have told me that even with 128MB core it is somewhat sluggish.  I
imagine it is painful with less.

 -WJ

Re: [9fans] mk

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

matt wrote:
> thei sys req. are just like time estimates. Work 'em out, double it
> and then add a bit more!

Plus allow plenty of room for the next upgrade.

Re: [9fans] mk

[Boyd Roberts]

> Plus allow plenty of room for the next upgrade.

john mackin used to have this theory called:

   estimating by three's

you think it'll take 1 hour, so say 3 hours.

" 1 day = 3 days
" 1 month = 3 months

etc

Re: [9fans] mk

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> john mackin used to have this theory called:
>    estimating by three's
> you think it'll take 1 hour, so say 3 hours.

My boss when I worked in a small interactive graphics software
house had made a similar observation.  However, it doesn't work
right unless you make an honest stab at estimating how long you
really think the job should take.  *Then* the supervisor should
multiply by three.

Re[2]: [9fans] mk

[matt]

Hello Douglas,

Friday, April 27, 2001, 3:41:44 PM, you wrote:

DAG> Boyd Roberts wrote:
>> john mackin used to have this theory called:
>>    estimating by three's
>> you think it'll take 1 hour, so say 3 hours.

DAG> My boss when I worked in a small interactive graphics software
DAG> house had made a similar observation.  However, it doesn't work
DAG> right unless you make an honest stab at estimating how long you
DAG> really think the job should take.  *Then* the supervisor should
DAG> multiply by three.

works good if you know he does it and you get your multiplication in
first


--
Best regards,
 matt                            mailto:matt@proweb.co.uk

Re: [9fans] mk

[Sam Ducksworth]

damn i thought it was scotty from star trek
came up with that rule.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Boyd Roberts wrote:

> > Plus allow plenty of room for the next upgrade.
>
> john mackin used to have this theory called:
>
>    estimating by three's
>
> you think it'll take 1 hour, so say 3 hours.
>
> " 1 day = 3 days
> " 1 month = 3 months
>
> etc
>
>
>

--sam