imminent release

imminent release

[Steve]

Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org> wrote:
> I hope "the plan 9 guys" will reject anyone who replies to the
> list rather then the sender.

I hope not. The message from Rob had a 'Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu',
probably inserted by the list software.

imminent release

[philw]

>I take it this means it sill can't boot from a local disk?  tftp is
no information on the volume label or how to share
the disk.

imminent release

[Scott]

| I just noticed that a SUN SLC takes longer to get
| to its boot prompt than it takes to build its kernel.

I take it this means it sill can't boot from a local disk?  tftp is
pretty slow; I haven't timed it, but it seems to go faster if you set
the workstation up as a regular diskless client and replace vmunix with
9ss ("boot net 9ss").

It you want the kernel build to take longer, try running on an 8M SLC.
The linker seems to take about 14M, so it ends up thrashing and taking
a very long time.

And speaking of Sun, is it my imagination or did they break TCP half
open connections in 4.1.3?  It seems to not notice when a connection is
severed and a new one attempted on the same port, which is exactly what
happens when you reboot an SLC that uses 9fs for its file server.

imminent release

[John]

> [about reply-to: lines]

Well there are reasons to run a list with and without a reply to line
set to the list.  I've run one's set up both ways.  I personly don't
care since my mailer is smart enought to pull the lines I ask for in
reply.

johno


-
John Orthoefer   | Take this out and a Unix Demon will dog your steps from 
<jco@bbn.com>    | now until the time_t's wrap around.
617-873-6188     |  -- Curse from the tunefs(8) man page source

imminent release

[Rich]

>> If we do create a newsgroup, what should we do with 9fans?
>I think we should keep it separate, in case the newsgroup gets too noisy.

That's horrible.

If you want to keep the "good stuff" to yourself you hurt newsgroup;
arguably one of the reasons for the newsgroup is advocacy.

Follow the common practice.  Keep the list, gatewayed, for those unable
(unwilling?) to read the Usenet group.  If a group of elitists later on
wishes to create a plan9-gurus later on, let them do so.
	/r$

imminent release

[Steve]

> If we do create a newsgroup, what should we do with 9fans?

I think we should keep it separate, in case the newsgroup gets too noisy.

imminent release

[Scott]

| Which is a bad thing for the list software to do.  Not adding the
| Reply-To is better, because it gives the person replying the choice
| of just replying to the author, or doing a group reply which will
| go to the list.  Can this be changed, to forestall future debacles?

The last time this discussion rolled around people asked that Reply-To
be put on; there was discussion of some mua's not supporting group
reply, or something along those lines.  When we adopted majordomo, that
software started adding Reply-To automagically.  I don't know if it can
be turned off.  Anyone else feel strongly about the matter?

If we do create a newsgroup, what should we do with 9fans?  Gateway
it?  Keep it seperate?  Retire it?  

imminent release

[philw]

I just noticed that a SUN SLC takes longer to get
to its boot prompt than it takes to build its kernel.

I guess you do learn something from building distributions.

phil

imminent release

[David]

Steve Kotsopoulos <steve@ecf.toronto.edu> writes:
>Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org> wrote:
>> I hope "the plan 9 guys" will reject anyone who replies to the
>> list rather then the sender.
>
>I hope not. The message from Rob had a 'Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu',
>probably inserted by the list software.

Which is a bad thing for the list software to do.  Not adding the
Reply-To is better, because it gives the person replying the choice
of just replying to the author, or doing a group reply which will
go to the list.  Can this be changed, to forestall future debacles?

imminent release

[Rich]

I hope "the plan 9 guys" will reject anyone who replies to the
list rather then the sender.