Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[forsyth]

>>what i'd _really_ like to see is styx in the file server.

the thought had crossed my mind.

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[rog]

> Please tell me also if there is any implementation of .Tk
> library/language on Plan9 ? I looked at Limbo examples of GUI
> programming using .Tk, they are quite nice. It would be great to
> have similar language (may be in form of fileserver, heh) in Plan9.

for programming graphical "widget-based" apps (most plan 9 apps
are not) tk is indeed nice. but it's not available for plan 9 directly.
one thing that makes the use of the inferno tk particularly nice
is the inbuilt support that Limbo has for strings. using a similar
interface from C would make life markedly harder.

> (may be in form of fileserver, heh)

this would actually be possible (would give something of a performance
hit though). if you had a copy of inferno, you could write a limbo app
that served a two-level filesystem containing one directory per top
level window, each containing a cmd file (writes send a tk command;
reads get the return value of the last tk command) and event files, one
per tk channel (reads get incoming events).  something like the above
might work. (given a styx<->9p bridge)

but i'd just use inferno (i would say that, of course!), because i like
limbo and in particular i like the fact that once i've written an app,
it will run without change on plan 9, Windows, Linux or a screen
phone.  having used limbo for a while, it seems so laborious to go back
to C.

> Why I stress on Plan9 more than Inferno, that's because Plan9,
> say so, is more free (in money sense) than Inferno, especially as
> to availability of native OS and its full source.

well, it's true that the source to plan 9 costs less than inferno, but
a) you don't need access to kernel source when developing
under hosted inferno (and all the other source is free)
b) if you've got plan 9 running, then inferno will just work as usual.
c) if you want to port the native kernel to a new device, then i'd suggest
that $300 is not unreasonable (about 4 orders of magnitude cheaper than
it was before...!) compared to all the other incidental costs
involved.

if you get a copy of the CD & manuals we're producing, i think
we're going to include in that a copy of inferno for plan 9.

  cheers,
    rog. (my views, not vita nuova's)

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[Wladimir Mutel]

rog@vitanuova.com wrote:

> that said, i'd like to see inferno working more closely with plan 9 on
> lots of things (e.g. plumbing, draw model) because they are so closely
> related, which means that less translation has to go on at the

	Thank you very much Rog.
	You really help me in my interest to increase my knowledge.

	Please tell me also if there is any implementation of .Tk
	library/language on Plan9 ? I looked at Limbo examples of GUI
	programming using .Tk, they are quite nice. It would be great to
	have similar language (may be in form of fileserver, heh) in Plan9.

	Why I stress on Plan9 more than Inferno, that's because Plan9,
	say so, is more free (in money sense) than Inferno, especially as
	to availability of native OS and its full source.

--
mwg@alkar.net

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[Anthony Sorace]

// ...how different are Styx and 9P protocols ?

again, a step behind rog. note that, given the relative simplicity of the
two protocols, writing a "gateway" that talks 9p out one end and styx out
the other shouldn't be that big a deal. somebody in the labs has already
got a program that posts files in the /srv directory from styx servers,
the same way srv does for 9p servers.

what i'd _really_ like to see is styx in the file server.
: anothy;

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[rog]

> 	Thank you for the explaination. Anyway it would be interesting to
> 	get DIS bytecode interpreter running under Plan9 directly, not
> 	under 'hosted'('emu') Inferno. And may be to have limbo-to-C
> 	translator or similar.

a lot of the usefulness of limbo comes from the fact that it runs
within inferno - the language itself is only part of the limbo
equation.

that said, i'd like to see inferno working more closely with plan 9 on
lots of things (e.g. plumbing, draw model) because they are so closely
related, which means that less translation has to go on at the
Inferno-OS transition. i don't think you'd gain a lot by running the
Dis VM without inferno. however, i suppose there might be a place for a
Limbo to C translator, sacrificing some of Limbo's portability for
speed. it'd be a fair amount of work though.

> 	And please would you or anybody else explain me how different are
> 	Styx and 9P protocols ? Do they need certain adaptors or they may
> 	interoperate right out of the box ?

as far as i'm aware, the main difference between styx and 9p is in the
authentication protocols (there are a few differences in the file
permission bits as well, plus the message numbering is different).
styx does authentication once for a connection - the authentication
happens at a different level to the styx protocol (and hence can be
used to authenticate things other than styx connections). it is also
potentially more secure, as encryption can be negotiated as well as
user authentication.

9p does individual authentication of users on a single connection,
which i guess in principal means that someone intercepting the
connection could "steal" a fid (e.g. by destroying a Tclunk in transit)
and use that to pretend to be some other user.

i think there are still some issues to resolve in styx regarding exactly
what a user "is".

  rog. (my views, not vita nuova's)

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[Anthony Sorace]

// Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

in adition to the response from rog@vitanuova, it's possibly worth
noting that there is a native limbo compiler for Plan 9 (as well as
the other hosted platforms). they generate the same bytecodes as
the Inferno limbo compiler (which'll only run under Inferno). this
probably isn't what you were asking, but it made developing limbo
code much nicer since i could use acme and mk. of cource, i can't
wait to see vitanuova's Inferno version of Acme.
: anothy;

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[Wladimir Mutel]

rog@vitanuova.com wrote:
>> Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

> so you can run limbo under plan 9- give it a week and you'll
> be able to get it. sorry for the delay; we've been completely
> snowed under here.

	Thank you for the explaination. Anyway it would be interesting to
	get DIS bytecode interpreter running under Plan9 directly, not
	under 'hosted'('emu') Inferno. And may be to have limbo-to-C
	translator or similar.

	And please would you or anybody else explain me how different are
	Styx and 9P protocols ? Do they need certain adaptors or they may
	interoperate right out of the box ?

--
mwg@alkar.net

Re: [9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[rog]

> Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

limbo doesn't run outside inferno.  inferno runs under plan 9, 2nd
edition, and we're testing it under 3rd edition, and it will soon be
available free for download (including all source except the core OS -
the core OS costs $150 to $300 depending on whether you're in academia
or not).

we'll also be releasing free (for commercial and non-commercial use)
versions for Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and possibly other
platforms i've forgotton.

so you can run limbo under plan 9- give it a week and you'll
be able to get it. sorry for the delay; we've been completely
snowed under here.

  cheers,
    rog.

[9fans] Anybody ported Limbo to Plan9 ?

[Wladimir Mutel]

	Greetings,

	You see the question in the subject,

	Please answer it or maybe discuss it.

	Thanks in advance for your participation.

--
mwg@alkar.net