From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:55:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006162255.PAA01672@ohio.river.org> From: Richard Uhtenwoldt To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] File/cpu service provider In-Reply-To: <200006160051.UAA08237@smtp2.fas.harvard.edu> References: <200006160051.UAA08237@smtp2.fas.harvard.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c2084380-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 I asked: >>can a terminal use the >>public internet to connect to a cpu server and >>a file server? Russ Cox writes: >As long as you can get IL packets >through, you're golden. I admin my own Linux box, and I am capable of learning to admin my own Plan 9 network, but I would rather become a Plan 9 user and perhaps even a Plan 9 app programmer before learning to admin my own Plan 9 network. in fact learning to admin a Plan 9 network is rather low on my list of things to achieve. it took a long time to learn how to admin my own Linux box well and I expect the learning curve for adminning a Plan 9 network is even longer because the install program is less mature than eg Suse's Yast and because Plan 9 does not have package managers like RPM and Debian's Apt or config managers like GNU Autoconf. so, I am willing to pay someone with a well-adminstered Plan 9 network connected to the internet (residential cable internet connection probably does not suffice) $20 or 30/mo for Plan 9 cpu and file and email services. ie, you give me an account and email address on your network and my Plan 9 terminal server at home connects to it over the public internet. the first use I put my account to might be to read the mailing lists I subscribe to. I might be willing to pay a one-time account-creation fee. of course the network I would most like an account on is the one inside Bell Labs but I figure there are rules against that. I realize that in many ways Plan 9 is a less mature environment than Linux is (eg, much fewer apps), and I am willing to put up with the hardships that entails. in particular, (though its underlying security architecture is more sound) because Plan 9 has not been beaten on for ten years by thousands of teenaged boys, it is probably more vulnerable than Unix/Linux to breakins and DoS attacks when connected to the public internet, resulting in outages. that does not sour me as long as uptime is at least, oh, 80%. at first I envision myself using an almost-stateless Plan 9 terminal like they do at Bell Labs, but over the years I would like to see things evolve so that data I wish to keep from prying eyes is stored and code that I run regularly is cached on my desktop (because disk drives are still cheaper and more responsive than public internet bandwidth). most "most-upstream" internet connectivity provider is currently Verio but I would probably be able to switch to whichever one you use so as to avoid annoying latency at the network access points. (I know from my experience telnetting over the public internet that latency is a bigger issue than bandwidth.) also, your server(s) probably needs to be in North America. one of my motives for pursuing this way of working with Plan 9 is my belief in the eventual dominance of "one-click" software installation and upgrading (cf, Sun's recent announcement of the Java Web Start spec and the rise of the "application-service provider") and my desire eventually to see Plan 9-based apps and services available via "one-click". I am in no particular rush to start using Plan 9 --my interest is long term-- but if you think you might be able to be my "Plan 9 service provider" months from now, please pipe up next few days. (in a few days, I go on vacation for a month.) Richard Uhtenwoldt