[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

Perhaps I missed something but this responce to my comments seems to
ramble with no clear perspective or point to make.

On Thu, 11 May 2000, Lucio De Re wrote:

> On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:51AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
> > individual motivations and goals.
> >
> vSTA is Open Source.  On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only
> because it is Open Source, but because it has less baggage.  In
> reality, it is too much of an academic exercise.

???, talk about a left turn. Couldn't care less about vSTA, whatever that
is...

If you're interested in academic OS'es then Ameoba and Space are about the
only two I'd waste time on.

> Open Source is not an end in itself, nor guarantee of success.

Duh. What has this got to do with anything?

> The *BSDs are as much Open Source as Linux and a lot less centrally
> controlled, yet they fail to attract as much interest as Linux.

For a variety of reasons. The BSD (prior to FreeBSD) license are actualy
more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others as well).
Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD isn't. That counts.

> Usability, in a very contrived sense, is the measure today.  Plan
> 9 fails, *BSDs barely pass, Linux is getting closer and the WinXXs
> pass with flying colours.

WinXX's fail miserably with respect to usability, they have a monopoly on
the commercial market and that is why they are succesful. As to Plan 9,
the reason it's not usable is that nobody with two halves of a clue is
going to work on a OS and then have to give some other party rights to the
code. If Plan 9 is to work it must be Open Source.

> Yet WinXX is no Open Source project.

Which is relevant how?

> I would like the comfort of Open Source.  Like Jim, I think the
> additional freedom will yield good results, but I can also appreciate
> the reluctance at Bell Labs to lose the philosophical guidance that
> they alone can impart on Plan 9.  Or do we merely want another
> platform on which to run conventional applications.  Why bother
> when Linux does it better than any other product.

Philosophical smilosophical. Bell/ATT/Lucent doesn't have any interest in
pursuing Plan 9 as a commercial venture. They should conserve their
resources and improve their PR, release Plan 9 Open Source.

Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on 30 year
old technology. Plan 9 however has a much cleaner process and function
model that are more ameniable to distributed networks/functions.

Many of the applications that people do such as word processing and email
will have to have the same fundamental interface irrespective of the
advanced technology they ride on top off. This is a moot point. On the
flip side, many applications such as data havens or true anonymous
remailers for example will never come to fruition so long as we stay on
the Unix (or any non-distributed OS) model.

> In summary, Plan 9 is a practical, but academically/theoretically
> oriented platform.  WinXX is utter pragmatism and Linux is fast
> catching up, even though from a different angle.  Somewhere in
> between are the *BSDs with interesting occasional forays in either
> direction.

The same could be said about Unix in 1970 with respect to
academic/theoretical. WinXX isn't pragmatic, it's based on incremental
improvement and captured user base. It's a thorougly predatory model.

> If I had to put my money anywhere, I'd bet on the Linux?Windows
> pragmatism, but my philosophical roots are to deep in academia to
> stand by and watch it happen.

Windows is headed toward a much more limited future. If Linux remains the
only significant thoroughly Open Source OS then it will continue to grow.


    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Douglas]

Jim Choate wrote:
> Exportability is moot. Code is speech. The fact that DES is so easily
> cracked makes it worthless. The current Plan 9 crypto is worse than
> nothing because it fools users without crypto background into a false
> sense of security.

DES isn't all that easily cracked.  However, better crypto is needed,
but really strong crypto is a lot harder than almost everyone thinks.
It is really hard to keep the protocols themselves from being abused.
So hard that this is still an area of active research!

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[forsyth]

thanks, dhog.

tomorrow, or rather today, once i've got in to work,
i hope to pull the list back to some further discussions
about licences, by posting a short summary of the one we
propose to use for some software we're releasing shortly.
we were intrigued to see that it has some overlap with gdb's `club',
but we've already got ours in legal form.  we haven't checked
all the details yet (we're frantically busy),
so that's just an impression.  he certainly did raise some
points that i do not think we have quite resolved, and something
might come out of a discussion about it.

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

On Thu, 11 May 2000 forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:

> >>Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.
>
> there!  you make my point for me.
>

Well, at least we agree you're confused....

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[dhog]

ravage@ssz.com:
> > >>Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.
> >
> > there!  you make my point for me.
>
> Well, at least we agree you're confused....

Actually, I don't think Charles' point was that he is confused, but
that you've run out of anything serious to argue about.  To quote
his earlier posting:

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk:
> when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
> brace styles.

Hope this helps,
David Hogan

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

On Thu, 11 May 2000 forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:

> >>like with Linux where the vendor releases the info Open Source. BSD's
> >>early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
> >>but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
> >>structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.
>
> having lived through that i do not think `a centralised community with a
> hierarchical structure' could realistically, or even remotely, describe the
> BSD arrangement.

Tell that to the Chancellors of Berkeley who, prior to the FreeBSD
license, owned it all if they chose to express it. They saw it wasn't in
their best interest and let it ride.

It's also worth noting that Berkley didn't loosen their license agreements
until *after* Linux had begun to grow.

As to living through it, I've owned at least one computer since 1976 (I
built my second one from components in '76 as well).

> unix-like systems have always been reliably chaotic (when not inchoate);
> arguably, that was part of the charm.  we like a good squabble.
> when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
> brace styles.

Actualy not, when Unix first came out and prior to Berkley and several
others licensing from Bell it was pretty homogenous. Prior to the 80's
there simply weren't that many people programming on Unix (or any other
form of system) that wasn't solely commercial. Comparing the state of
hobby or non-commercial computing prior to about 1980 to that after is
simply unrealistic.

Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[forsyth]

>>Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.

there!  you make my point for me.

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[forsyth]

>>like with Linux where the vendor releases the info Open Source. BSD's
>>early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
>>but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
>>structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.

having lived through that i do not think `a centralised community with a hierarchical
structure' could realistically, or even remotely, describe the BSD arrangement.
unix-like systems have always been reliably chaotic (when not inchoate);
arguably, that was part of the charm.  we like a good squabble.
when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
brace styles.

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

On Thu, 11 May 2000, Greg Hudson wrote:

> > For a variety of reasons. The BSD (prior to FreeBSD) license are
> > actualy more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others
> > as well).  Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD
> > isn't. That counts.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion about the license merits, but I don't
> think there's any sense in which Linux can be considered more of a
> "community project" than the *BSDs.

Nobody said it was more of a community. BSD did NOT start out as a
community project, it started out as a project of Berkley. Linux started
out as a project of an individual and from day one was Open Sourced. BSD
wishes it could make this claim. It was only when the Chancellors of
Berkley found that their cash cow was going belly up that they decided to
change the license. You mis-represent the flow of history.

The point you miss is that Linux is a free'er license than the more
restrictive BSD license (except for the FreeBSD license which I
specificaly mentioned as an exception).

> And while the *BSDs don't have the same magnitude of user base as
> Linux, they have thriving developer communities and often acquire
> support for new kinds of hardware before Linux does.  (USB and ISA
> plug and play are good examples.)  So while Lucio's argument makes
> sense, since he was talking about users rather than developers, your
> argument does not.

It's clear you'r a BSD lover (bigot?).

Again misreprensentation. First, developers are users, you draw a false
distinction here. Second, BSD has never had as large a community and if
BDS got access to hardware it was because somebody paid the vendors
licenseing fee (usualy Berkley or a derived authority), it was not
like with Linux where the vendor releases the info Open Source. BSD's
early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.

As to making sense, no accounting for taste.

> > Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on
> > 30 year old technology.
>
> All good operating system software is based on 30 year old technology.
> That's when the good research was done.  Plan 9 is no exception.

Hardly. Plan 9 may have been built by many of the same programmers it was
specificaly designed to address issues that Unix didn't do well or at all.
Very little of the Plan 9 code I've seen looks like it came from a Unix
source tree.

Unix started in 1969 or there abouts, Plan 9 was started in the 80's. So,
Plan 9 can at best be 20 years old. However, I know that the Plan 9 CD has
not been available for 20 years (let alone 30 years as your claim would
imply).

As to 'good' reseach. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[forsyth]

>>... If Linux remains the
>>only significant thoroughly Open Source OS
>>then it will continue to grow.

yes, i for one certainly expect it to grow.

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Greg]

> For a variety of reasons. The BSD (prior to FreeBSD) license are
> actualy more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others
> as well).  Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD
> isn't. That counts.

You're entitled to your opinion about the license merits, but I don't
think there's any sense in which Linux can be considered more of a
"community project" than the *BSDs.

And while the *BSDs don't have the same magnitude of user base as
Linux, they have thriving developer communities and often acquire
support for new kinds of hardware before Linux does.  (USB and ISA
plug and play are good examples.)  So while Lucio's argument makes
sense, since he was talking about users rather than developers, your
argument does not.

> Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on
> 30 year old technology.

All good operating system software is based on 30 year old technology.
That's when the good research was done.  Plan 9 is no exception.

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Bengt]

> From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
> vSTA is Open Source.  On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only

1 It is VSTa
2 See http://www.zendo.com/vsta

PS Despite the email archive having October 1998 as its last entry there are emails from
April 2000 in there.


Best Wishes, Bengt
===============================================================
Everything aforementioned should be regarded as totally private
opinions, and nothing else. bengt@softwell.se
``His great strength is that he is uncompromising. It would make
him physically ill to think of programming in C++.''

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Lucio]

On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:51AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
> individual motivations and goals.
>
vSTA is Open Source.  On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only
because it is Open Source, but because it has less baggage.  In
reality, it is too much of an academic exercise.

Open Source is not an end in itself, nor guarantee of success.
The *BSDs are as much Open Source as Linux and a lot less centrally
controlled, yet they fail to attract as much interest as Linux.
Usability, in a very contrived sense, is the measure today.  Plan
9 fails, *BSDs barely pass, Linux is getting closer and the WinXXs
pass with flying colours.

Yet WinXX is no Open Source project.

I would like the comfort of Open Source.  Like Jim, I think the
additional freedom will yield good results, but I can also appreciate
the reluctance at Bell Labs to lose the philosophical guidance that
they alone can impart on Plan 9.  Or do we merely want another
platform on which to run conventional applications.  Why bother
when Linux does it better than any other product.

In summary, Plan 9 is a practical, but academically/theoretically
oriented platform.  WinXX is utter pragmatism and Linux is fast
catching up, even though from a different angle.  Somewhere in
between are the *BSDs with interesting occasional forays in either
direction.

If I had to put my money anywhere, I'd bet on the Linux?Windows
pragmatism, but my philosophical roots are to deep in academia to
stand by and watch it happen.

As far as I am concerned, David's efforts have my support, and so
does the card hand that Forsythe is holding rather close to his chest.

(There you go, Forsythe, a little wink in your direction :-)

++L

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

On Wed, 10 May 2000, G. David Butler wrote:

> After waiting for this thread to idle (and watching with amusement
> the discussions of Plan 9 functionality in Linux) I would like to
> continue the discussion of commercial use and other things.

> Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:

> >I'll be working on an anonymous remailer and the replacement of DES as the
> >default encryption mechanism.
>
> Yes it would seem that an MD5 hash would be more exportable and secure.

Exportability is moot. Code is speech. The fact that DES is so easily
cracked makes it worthless. The current Plan 9 crypto is worse than
nothing because it fools users without crypto background into a false
sense of security.

> Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

> Yes, that is the lesson.  The process and motivation for creating
> software is changing.  How can we leverage this change to promote
> Plan 9?

Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
individual motivations and goals.

> >> >On the other hand, setting up a CVS repository and assigning one
> >> >staff member to moderate source updates would, in my opinion, be
> >> >considerably simpler and hopefully within a moderate budget.  In
> >> >return, Bell Labs would get both feedback and improvements well in
> >> >excess of their investment.
>
> I like this idea.  Perhaps they would, too.

I hate it. Plan 9 needs to move off of ATT/Lucent/Bell backing and stand
on its own two feet. The Open Source community is more than capable of
managing such code repositories. We don't need parenting or wasting energy
supporting some corporate hegemony.

> Richard Uhtenwoldt <ru@ohio.river.org> wrote:
>
> >summary: the lifting of the no-commercial-use provision would prove
> >a major win, but what you end up with is still not as good as
> >an open-source license,  from my point of view.
>
> I don't know, I may have a better idea, but I'll let you decide.

I must throw my vote strongly on the Open Source license format. Anything
else and the potential for abuse or monopolization of the work is simply
too great.

It's one thing to allow commercial use, it's another to create an
environment where that is the primary driving force. Linux works not so
much because it is commercialy viable but because it also recognizes the
contributions of the individual.

> So, I would like to propose the idea of _The Plan 9 Club_.
>
> A member of the Club would have the following benefits:
>
> Access to the source (even the shrinkwrap license allows this).
> (Remember, only Lucent has source distribution rights.)
>
> Access to repositories of bug fixes and enhancements coordinated
> by the Club.  (It is important to have these separate as the Club
> would have an obligation to return bug fixes to Lucent, but not
> enhancements.)
>
> Access to documentation, training and support.
>
> Access to commercial use sublicenses.
>
>
> To become a member you would have to agree to the terms of the
> associated licenses and pay (hopefully trivial) dues either yearly
> or monthly.  Dues would fund the repostories and the support
> elements of the Club.  Sublicenses would involve additional fees.

Yuck. This sounds like an organization intended to commercialy exploit a
resource, not spread it far and wide because 'It's a good idea'.

> Now, here are some questions for us all:
>
> How should the Club be governed?

It shouldn't, at least any more than the current Open Source community is
governed. I must say I'm not one for these heirarchical centralised
systems.

> How would members share in the ownership of the Club?!!!

'Ownership', now that is the flag phrase of the day.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Lucio]

On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:51AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
> individual motivations and goals.
>
vSTA is Open Source.  On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only
because it is Open Source, but because it has less baggage.  In
reality, it is too much of an academic exercise.

Open Source is not an end in itself, nor guarantee of success.
The *BSDs are as much Open Source as Linux and a lot less centrally
controlled, yet they fail to attract as much interest as Linux.
Usability, in a very contrived sense, is the measure today.  Plan
9 fails, *BSDs barely pass, Linux is getting closer and the WinXXs
pass with flying colours.

Yet WinXX is no Open Source project.

I would like the comfort of Open Source.  Like Jim, I think the
additional freedom will yield good results, but I can also appreciate
the reluctance at Bell Labs to lose the philosophical guidance that
they alone can impart on Plan 9.  Or do we merely want another
platform on which to run conventional applications.  Why bother
when Linux does it better than any other product.

In summary, Plan 9 is a practical, but academically/theoretically
oriented platform.  WinXX is utter pragmatism and Linux is fast
catching up, even though from a different angle.  Somewhere in
between are the *BSDs with interesting occasional forays in either
direction.

If I had to put my money anywhere, I'd bet on the Linux?Windows
pragmatism, but my philosophical roots are to deep in academia to
stand by and watch it happen.

As far as I am concerned, David's efforts have my support, and so
does the card hand that Forsythe is holding rather close to his chest.

(There you go, Forsythe, a little wink in your direction :-)

++L

[9fans] Re: Plan 9 future

[Jim]

On Fri, 5 May 2000, G. David Butler wrote:

> It is "open" now, and how much attention has it attracted?  Linux got
> attention because the ~5,000 ISPs found it was an inexpensive way to
> run their servers.  Can they use Plan 9 for that?

I can attest to this. I've known of Plan 9 almost since day 1. I've also
been involved with Linux since '92. If you look in the back of a 1st or
2nd ed. "Running Linux" you'll find my system listed as a mirror and I am
also the founder of the Central Texas Linux User Group in 1994. I was
FORCED to select Linux over Plan 9 solely because of the licensing with
respect to my consulting. I currently run 14 machines in my home office,
mostly running Linux. They are ix86, Sparc, RS/6000, Amiga, and Atari
(solely for file transfer capability, no dev). I've also converted several
hundred people to Linux over the years I truly wish I could have given
them Plan 9 instead.

Had the Plan 9 license not been non-commercial I'd have been using it. If
Plan 9 is going to release Open Source then my current plan is to jump to
that and start developing there. I also hope to start a Plan 9 user group
when that happens as well.

> But enough complaining!  After 4 long years of negotiating with
> Lucent I (as a representative of a corporation set up for this
> purpose) have finally secured a redistribution license for the '95
> and (if there is one) the upcoming release of Plan 9.  I cannot
> discuss the financial details of the agreement (except to say it
> was expensive).  But it makes it possible for end users worldwide
> to get a sublicense to use Plan 9 commercially.

Where do I buy a license?

> I have a few ideas of how to proceed with this new tool, but I'm
> hoping to gather a bunch of feedback at USENIX.  Do you all think
> one BOF session going to be enough?

I'll be working on an anonymous remailer and the replacement of DES as the
default encryption mechanism. I'll also be using it with my robots and
rockets (packet radio).

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

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