Re: [9fans] ddc

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

> Is there any plan to integrate some kind
> of ddc communication between monitors
> and vga cards in some near future?.

No.

> If not, why?.

Because there are no plans to go anywhere
near vga in the near future.  I actually rewrote
vga a couple years ago.  The new one is cleaner,
doesn't require anything in vgadb, makes it easy
to add switching back to text mode and other
video modes, and has DDC/EDID support (on
a card-by-card basis: each card lets you at the
DDC in a different way).  But it only supports three
cards.  Sad though it is, the current vga ``is neither
clean nor portable, but it has slowly come to terms
with its particular set of cranky devices.''
Basically, pushing the new vga out the door would
be a big time sink with little actual benefit.

Things work well enough that until there are more
pressing reasons, it's probably best to leave vga
alone.

Russ

Re: [9fans] ddc

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> Things work well enough that until there are more
> pressing reasons, it's probably best to leave vga
> alone.
>

but would it hurt to push your new vga code out? supposedly
the benefit of open source is that someone else can do the
work for you, however badly. if you're concerned with having
to answer lots of stupid questions, that's a different issue :)

anyway, hasn't the graphics world come to behave much the same
way the CPU architecture world does? one graphics chip to rule
them all? i just re-read 'systems software research is irrelevant'
(http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/rob/utah2000.ps) and am under
the impression that supporting the two major graphics card vendors
suffices in 90% of the cases nowadays.

andrey

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Scott Schwartz]

Andrey writes:
| anyway, hasn't the graphics world come to behave much the same
| way the CPU architecture world does? one graphics chip to rule
| them all?

Yeahbut... my home computer is a Pentium 100 with a #9 771.  I'd hate
to be the case that Plan 9 stops supporting!

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

Sigh, shouldn't the -user community- be making this decision...

I can say that there is a significant contingent of Hangar 18 users
who disagree with the assertion that the current VGA support is
good enough.

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> > Is there any plan to integrate some kind
> > of ddc communication between monitors
> > and vga cards in some near future?.
>
> No.
>
> > If not, why?.
>
> Because there are no plans to go anywhere
> near vga in the near future.  I actually rewrote
> vga a couple years ago.  The new one is cleaner,
> doesn't require anything in vgadb, makes it easy
> to add switching back to text mode and other
> video modes, and has DDC/EDID support (on
> a card-by-card basis: each card lets you at the
> DDC in a different way).  But it only supports three
> cards.  Sad though it is, the current vga ``is neither
> clean nor portable, but it has slowly come to terms
> with its particular set of cranky devices.''
> Basically, pushing the new vga out the door would
> be a big time sink with little actual benefit.
>
> Things work well enough that until there are more
> pressing reasons, it's probably best to leave vga
> alone.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Doc Shipley]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote:

>
> Sigh, shouldn't the -user community- be making this decision...

  More likely, "Shouldn't the -contributing- user community be making
this decision..."
  By what decree is Russ Cox the slave of the Plan9 community?

	Doc

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Doc Shipley wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >
> > Sigh, shouldn't the -user community- be making this decision...
>
>   More likely, "Shouldn't the -contributing- user community be making
> this decision..."

Depends on what one means by -contributing-.

>   By what decree is Russ Cox the slave of the Plan9 community?

No, the -user- community is the one who decides.

Only Russ can decide what his commitment is. Only the user community
can decide if it's worth it or not. Only Russ can decide if he can
live with their verdict.

Anyway, what's a Linux bigot like you doing here. Nobody at ALG to
run off so you decided to take over the Plan 9 world now too?  Or
did they run you out?

Plan 9 folks should stow away your virgins and gold. Me thinks the
pirates have beached.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Lucio De Re]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:57:40PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> Depends on what one means by -contributing-.
>
Maybe.  What's _your_ definition?

> >   By what decree is Russ Cox the slave of the Plan9 community?
>
> No, the -user- community is the one who decides.
>
Maybe.  Your idea of a user community seems to exclude each and every
9fan except you.  Weird indeed.

> Only Russ can decide what his commitment is. Only the user community
> can decide if it's worth it or not. Only Russ can decide if he can
> live with their verdict.
>
I'm sure Russ has just decided to retire to a monastery on the
strength of your lack of acceptance <smirk>.

> Anyway, what's a Linux bigot like you doing here. Nobody at ALG to
> run off so you decided to take over the Plan 9 world now too?  Or
> did they run you out?
>
Please take your personal rants offline.

> Plan 9 folks should stow away your virgins and gold. Me thinks the
> pirates have beached.
>
I did, long ago.  I don't like exposing either valuable to your lack
of minimum social standards.

++L

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Doc Shipley]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Doc Shipley wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > > Sigh, shouldn't the -user community- be making this decision...
> >
> >   More likely, "Shouldn't the -contributing- user community be making
> > this decision..."
>
> Depends on what one means by -contributing-.

  I mean writing code, writing documentation, directed testing &
feedback, donating hardware, running the helpdesk, hosting the mailing
list [on a non-black-holed server], answering questions - you know,
doing tangible, useful things.
  Um.  Maybe you wouldn't know.
  I mean "it's my money/time/code/$resource.  *I* decide if I need to
pursue a particular goal"

> Anyway, what's a Linux bigot like you doing here. Nobody at ALG to
> run off so you decided to take over the Plan 9 world now too?  Or
> did they run you out?

  What I'm doing here is looking at an interesting OS.  Something
"bigots" aren't much known for.
  Jim, can you spell "ad hominem"?

	Doc

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Doc Shipley wrote:

>   I mean writing code, writing documentation, directed testing &
> feedback, donating hardware, running the helpdesk, hosting the mailing
> list [on a non-black-holed server], answering questions - you know,
> doing tangible, useful things.
>   Um.  Maybe you wouldn't know.
>   I mean "it's my money/time/code/$resource.  *I* decide if I need to
> pursue a particular goal"

Sounds more like tooting your own horn. However, for those who -are-
in the know you sound pretty damn silly.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Lucio De Re]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> Things work well enough that until there are more
> pressing reasons, it's probably best to leave vga
> alone.
>
Publish and be damned?

I keep hearing about partially complete efforts that are being
abandoned and personally would hate to lose them altogether.  There
is the additional benefit of using an incomplete code base as a
learning platform and one of the things I like most about Plan 9
is that it deserves and gets a lot of documentation.

Please let's make these efforts public.

++L

Re: [9fans] ddc

[paurea]

Russ Cox writes:

 > Things work well enough that until there are more
 > pressing reasons, it's probably best to leave vga
 > alone.
 >
 > Russ


Thanks. I expected some of the sort...
--
                 Saludos,
                         Gorka

"Curiosity sKilled the cat"

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Richard Miller]

> One advantage (as I understood it) of using a specialized kernel
> was a form of security -- there were *no* user mode programs
> whose bugs could be exploited.

It went further than that: you couldn't even exploit a buffer overflow
to exec a shell, because there was no shell and no exec.

Would it be feasible, as part of bootstrapping a minimal fossil
server, to remove or otherwise disable the exec system call
once everything was running?

-- Richard

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Russ Cox]

> Would it be feasible, as part of bootstrapping a minimal fossil
> server, to remove or otherwise disable the exec system call
> once everything was running?

Of course.  Go ahead if you really want.  I don't want to live
in that environment.  There are no buffer overflows anyway.  ;-)
I _really_ like the fact that I can run other programs on
the file server now, like flchk.  I'm not going back.

I think it's reasonable not to run any services on the
machine other than fossil, and to connect with a serial
console to run other things.  Disabling exec strikes me
as extreme.

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Russ Cox wrote:

> There are no buffer overflows anyway.  ;-)


I see the smiley, but have to reply anyway. this is not a nasty jab
at Russ, just a fix (I hope :)

there's a buffer overflow in cpu.c (strcpy):

% cpu -h `{perl -e '{print "A"x100;}'}
cpu 116986: suicide: sys: trap: fault read addr=0x19000 pc=0x00005b8b
plan9% acid 116986
/proc/116986/text:386 plan 9 executable

/sys/lib/acid/port
/sys/lib/acid/386
acid: stk()
At pc:0x00005b8b:fmtfmt+0x1f /sys/src/libc/fmt/fmt.c:63
fmtfmt(c=0x00000073) /sys/src/libc/fmt/fmt.c:57
        called from _fmtdispatch+0x83 /sys/src/libc/fmt/fmt.c:175
_fmtdispatch(isrunes=0x00000000,f=0x7fffeb48,fmt=0x000168b6) /sys/src/libc/fmt/fmt.c:113
        called from dofmt+0x75 /sys/src/libc/fmt/dofmt.c:62
dofmt(fmt=0x000168b4,f=0x7fffeb48) /sys/src/libc/fmt/dofmt.c:7
        called from vsnprint+0x62 /sys/src/libc/fmt/vsnprint.c:20
vsnprint(len=0x00000100,buf=0x00018734,args=0x7fffebac,fmt=0x000168b0) /sys/src/libc/fmt/vsnprint.c:5
        called from snprint+0x2b /sys/src/libc/fmt/snprint.c:13
snprint(fmt=0x000168b0,buf=0x00018734,len=0x00000100) /sys/src/libc/fmt/snprint.c:5
        called from netmkaddr+0x5e /sys/src/libc/port/netmkaddr.c:34
netmkaddr(linear=0x00017e0c,defnet=0x00000000,defsrv=0x00016978) /sys/src/libc/port/netmkaddr.c:10
        called from rexcall+0x28 /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:347
rexcall(host=0x00017e0c,service=0x00016978,fd=0x7fffed98) /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:339
        called from main+0x132 /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:147
main(argv=0x7fffef84,argc=0x00000000) /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:77
        called from _main+0x31 /sys/src/libc/386/main9.s:16
acid:


----------------------

here's the fix:

plan9% diff cpu.c /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c
121c121
<               strncpy(system, p, sizeof system);
---
>               strcpy(system, p);
plan9% 8c cpu.c; 8l cpu.8
plan9% 8.out -h `{perl -e '{print "A"x100}'}
cpu: can't dial: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA: cs: can't translate address
plan9%

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Scott Schwartz]

Andrey writes:
| <               strncpy(system, p, sizeof system);

That still has the problem that strncpy is not required to NUL terminate
the destination.  How about strecpy?

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[andrey mirtchovski]

I agree, this opens up a whole new can of worms, as illustrated here:

Miller, T. C., Raadt, T. D.
strlcpy and strlcat -- Consistent, Safe, String Copy and Concatenation.
Proceedings of USENIX Annual Technical Conference. June,
1999. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/strlcpy-paper.ps

on the other hand I think we're in the unique position to fix strncpy
instead of adding another syscall -- after all it's not Ken C we're
dealing with :)

andrey

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Scott Schwartz wrote:

> Andrey writes:
> | <               strncpy(system, p, sizeof system);
>
> That still has the problem that strncpy is not required to NUL terminate
> the destination.  How about strecpy?
>

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[andrey mirtchovski]

or, we can just avoid it altogether...

s/Ken C/ANSI C/ in the previous email

andrey

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Russ Cox]

> Miller, T. C., Raadt, T. D.
> strlcpy and strlcat -- Consistent, Safe, String Copy and Concatenation.
> Proceedings of USENIX Annual Technical Conference. June,
> 1999. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/strlcpy-paper.ps

surely this is near the top of the list for most trivial usenix paper ever.

> on the other hand I think we're in the unique position to fix strncpy
> instead of adding another syscall

strecpy serves a similar purpose.

we left strncat alone to avoid surprises when porting plan 9
code to other systems.

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Russ Cox wrote:
> we left strncat alone to avoid surprises when porting plan 9
> code to other systems.

An excellent policy, which also helps in importing software
from other systems.  Standards have a purpose.

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[Russ Cox]

> An excellent policy, which also helps in importing software
> from other systems.  Standards have a purpose.

as i wrote that, i suspected you would approve.

Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available

[rob pike, esq.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 135 bytes --]

A less drastic step would be to disable network ports such as
cpu and telnet, to require people to use the console to debug.

-rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1972 bytes --]

From: Richard Miller <miller@hamnavoe.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 4th edition file server available
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:01:30 0000
Message-ID: <14897aa3a24d632f340f30863deb7850@hamnavoe.demon.co.uk>

> One advantage (as I understood it) of using a specialized kernel
> was a form of security -- there were *no* user mode programs
> whose bugs could be exploited.

It went further than that: you couldn't even exploit a buffer overflow
to exec a shell, because there was no shell and no exec.

Would it be feasible, as part of bootstrapping a minimal fossil
server, to remove or otherwise disable the exec system call
once everything was running?

-- Richard

Re: [9fans] ddc

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

Ken left on his own 6 months ahead of the first incentive
(to leave) offer last year.  He wasn't downsized, though he
seems to have lost a bit of weight since.  If he'ld decided
to stay, he would have been safe till the heat death of the
company.  He left because he wasn't having fun any more and
wanted to do something different.

Lucent has been very protective of research despite the
`troubles'.  While the company shed over 2/3 of its employees,
our center is only about 15% smaller than its largest size.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2604 bytes --]

From: Jack Johnson <fragment@nas.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ddc
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:55:32 -0800
Message-ID: <3DCAC534.7000507@nas.com>

presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> Lucent's woes has caused many researchers to leave.  Our lab is
> showing the strain and we've just been told that we're going to
> get hit with the next wave of firings.  In the last few years
> we've lost Ken Thompson, Phil Winterbottom, Sean Dorward, and
> just recently Sean Quinlan, and Rob Pike.

I knew things weren't peachy at the Labs, but I didn't realize they were
   abysmal.

Plus, what a great way to bolster investor confidence:

"Lucent Technologies:  We 'downsized' a National Medal of Technology
winner."

So if I win the lottery tonight, any idea of the going price for the
Computing Sciences Research Center?

(Maybe $1M in office space and gear, and another $1.5M per employee in
exchange for showing up at work when it suits them?  Bring your own
healthcare....)

-Jack

P.S.

I'd hire your glassblower, too.  I think he's one of five people in the
nation blowing custom glass for experiments.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]

The weird wording change was indeed someone trying to raise capital
with something that got stuck under plan 9.  It was an idiotic
(closing the barn door after the horses had bolted) move and
luckily the lawyers realized it as soon as we got someone with
some brains to look at it.  Comments from 9fans helped a lot
in getting people to review the change.  It did have the
advantage that it raised such a flap and embarassed enough
people that its not likely to happen again.

Lucent's woes has caused many researchers to leave.  Our lab is
showing the strain and we've just been told that we're going to
get hit with the next wave of firings.  In the last few years
we've lost Ken Thompson, Phil Winterbottom, Sean Dorward, and
just recently Sean Quinlan, and Rob Pike.

All the internal pressure at the moment is to create a more liberal
license and dump more stuff under the umbrella so that the people
leaving can continue their research elsewhere.  The back pressure
is just the usual unwillingness to make anything more liberal, the
cover your ass philosophy that most large orgs embrace.  That back
pressure continues to decrease mostly because the number of lawyers
is decreasing and those left have better things to do.

People afraid to use Plan 9 because of the current license are
certainly correct to do so, the IP clause is just too uncomfortable.
However, don't expect any changes for the worse.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2903 bytes --]

From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Cc: <hangar18-general@open-forge.org>, <hell@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] ddc
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:00:07 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211071156290.22124-100000@einstein.ssz.com>


On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> > very list. I'm worried about R4 because that license looks like it may
> > prevent a core code split so we won't be able to use any of it, too bad.
>
> given that the license has gotten less restrictive since r3,
> you should feel free to go off and do your code split using r4.
> we did r4 with the same license we were using for r3
> at the time.

It isn't the wording per se, but the rather weird way it morphed a short
while ago. Demonstrates it's unstable and there is some sort of internal
conflict in Lucent. Given their financial situation it would not surprise
me if the lawyers decided it wouldn't be a nifty way to raise some going
out of business capital. Such a situation could create a very serious
situation for any user groups or indy developers who happen to jump on the
Plan 9 bandwagon.

I'm going to cover all my bases for the time being by trying to keep both
versions alive. As much of a pain that will be ;)


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jack Johnson]

presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> Lucent's woes has caused many researchers to leave.  Our lab is
> showing the strain and we've just been told that we're going to
> get hit with the next wave of firings.  In the last few years
> we've lost Ken Thompson, Phil Winterbottom, Sean Dorward, and
> just recently Sean Quinlan, and Rob Pike.

I knew things weren't peachy at the Labs, but I didn't realize they were
   abysmal.

Plus, what a great way to bolster investor confidence:

"Lucent Technologies:  We 'downsized' a National Medal of Technology
winner."

So if I win the lottery tonight, any idea of the going price for the
Computing Sciences Research Center?

(Maybe $1M in office space and gear, and another $1.5M per employee in
exchange for showing up at work when it suits them?  Bring your own
healthcare....)

-Jack

P.S.

I'd hire your glassblower, too.  I think he's one of five people in the
nation blowing custom glass for experiments.

[9fans] ddc

[Joel Salomon]

If you want applications, port X to run under rio - voila! most of the 13
thousand apps included on the Debian distro will be available instantly!
(including the 369 or so tetrisii, 17 dozen minesweeper clones, etc)

--Joel
__________________________________________________________________________
Due to economic circumstances, the light at the end of the tunnel has been
turned off.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Dan Cross]

> If you want applications, port X to run under rio - voila! most of the 13
> thousand apps included on the Debian distro will be available instantly!
> (including the 369 or so tetrisii, 17 dozen minesweeper clones, etc)

Well, then what would Choate have to whine about?  He'd have the Linux
clone he evidentally wants.

I've noticed that there are two kinds of people involved in ``Open
Source Projects.''  Those that write code, and those that are the
self-styled project coordinator and cheerleader types.  The latter are
the people who make the bombastic claims about the social impact of a
particular piece of software (not to say that such things might not
happen), who set up 40 billion mailing lists to discuss and dissect the
most minute details of their favorite project du jour, who make wild
statements about the ``rights of the -user- community,'' and who argue
endlessly about the details of license agreements.  I suspect that
Choate is in this latter camp.

Now, don't get me wrong: I think that user groups are fine, some amount
of cheerleading is good, and certainly there is overlap between the
cheerleading and coding camps.  But open source projects tend to get
polarized, and the normal pressures that would prevent people who can't
otherwise contribute from joining the project don't exist (like, they
don't have an interview to get past, since no one is hiring them).
Enter people like Choate (...and probably people such as myself, as
well; hey, I'll guilty of some of this stuff too!  Just like writing
this letter).  What's always confused me, however, is why these guys
make such dramatic claims but then never follow through on them.

Case in point: Choate and his Hangar 18 group's ``core code split''
(whatever that means).  Okay, where is it?  If he's so fed up with
9fans, the existing Plan 9 community, etc, why not take the code that's
out there now and run with it?  The license isn't perfect, but it's the
same as the 3rd Edition license, and it's sufficiently liberal as to
allow this.  When is this ``split'' going to happen?  I'm still
waiting.  I've been hearing about Hangar 18 for a year or so now
through Choate's misspelled, grammatically incorrect spam (in multiple
languages, no less), but have yet to see it actually produce anything
in terms of code, documentation, or, well, anything other than
misspelled, grammatically incorrect spam.  Personally, I don't think it
will.  I think it's just the pet project of a guy who doesn't
understand the technology and is frustrated at his own lack of ability,
and who projects that frustration out at a larger community he
admires.

Wow, that's kind of sad, isn't it.  Maybe as sad as me posting this
letter.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

> I'm going to cover all my bases for the time being by trying to keep both
> versions alive. As much of a pain that will be ;)

if you're happy with the license as it is now,
why not use that source code and if the license
changes later, you can walk away and still use the code as it
stands now under the license as it stands now.

keeping the r3 code alive is just making more work
for yourself.  go ahead if you really want, but it's
pointless.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> keeping the r3 code alive is just making more work
> for yourself.  go ahead if you really want, but it's
> pointless.

I feel so much better now that I have your permission.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

> very list. I'm worried about R4 because that license looks like it may
> prevent a core code split so we won't be able to use any of it, too bad.

given that the license has gotten less restrictive since r3,
you should feel free to go off and do your code split using r4.
we did r4 with the same license we were using for r3
at the time.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> > very list. I'm worried about R4 because that license looks like it may
> > prevent a core code split so we won't be able to use any of it, too bad.
>
> given that the license has gotten less restrictive since r3,
> you should feel free to go off and do your code split using r4.
> we did r4 with the same license we were using for r3
> at the time.

It isn't the wording per se, but the rather weird way it morphed a short
while ago. Demonstrates it's unstable and there is some sort of internal
conflict in Lucent. Given their financial situation it would not surprise
me if the lawyers decided it wouldn't be a nifty way to raise some going
out of business capital. Such a situation could create a very serious
situation for any user groups or indy developers who happen to jump on the
Plan 9 bandwagon.

I'm going to cover all my bases for the time being by trying to keep both
versions alive. As much of a pain that will be ;)


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Skip Tavakkolian]

The way I see it, Russ has been more than reasonable in dealing with
you.  He doesn't HAVE TO do anything for "the community", especially
one that includes sociopaths like you.

Crawl back under the rock whence you came, please!

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Jim Choate opened his mouth again:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:
>
>> keeping the r3 code alive is just making more work
>> for yourself.  go ahead if you really want, but it's
>> pointless.
>
> I feel so much better now that I have your permission.
>
>
>  --
>     ____________________________________________________________________
>
>     We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
>     we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
>                                                   jchoate@open-forge.org
>     Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[nigel]

> This sort of attitude does nothing but contribute to the failure of Plan 9
> which makes -ANY- contribution that one might make a waste.

Actually it was a genuine question, no tact, no insult intended.

I really wanted to understand where you are coming from.  It seems you
feel that Plan 9 has failed, and so ANYone contributing to it is
wasting effort.  Fair enough; I understand your position.

In that case, this applies to Russ as much as anyone.  You have just
had him contribute something when, not only was it against his better
judgement, but yours as well. So I'm searching for an understanding.

You must want the code, and this is supported by your 'thank you'
email.  So the code isn't entirely useless to you.  In that case,
contributing it to Plan 9, on the face of it, doesn't seem entirely
wasted.  I have to say that I find this slightly inconsistent, but
it's not the big issue for me. We'll move on to my original question.

If Plan 9 has failed (in your opinion), you don't want the code for
Plan 9.  You must want the code for something else, a different
operating system, to learn from, I don't know, it's not important.

In short, you feel it might have value, and therefore should be 'out
there' so that the community can judge its usefulness, irrespective of
the creator's opinion. Again, I understand your position here.

Right.  I'll rephrase my question, omitting Plan 9, in case that
is the sticking point.  It was

> Can I ask what Hangar 18 users have contributed to the
> Plan 9 code base?

It is now:

	Can I ask what code Hanger 18 users have contributed to the
	community?

And also:

	What code do the Hangar 18 users have that
	they haven't made available to the community yet? Remember,
	it's not for you to judge its usefulness.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 nigel@9fs.org wrote:

> I really wanted to understand where you are coming from.  It seems you
> feel that Plan 9 has failed, and so ANYone contributing to it is
> wasting effort.  Fair enough; I understand your position.

No, I have -never- said Plan 9 failed. If I thought Plan 9 had failed
would I have been following it for something like 17 years (ie USENIX in
'84 or '85 whenever it was Pike gave the initial talk)? Would I spend
fucking hours, money, and time listening to shit like this? Would I put up
with egotistical insecure dumbasses like Doc [1] following me around  with
nothing better to do than stir shit? Would I have machines named Pike,
Ritchie, et al? No, no, and no.

What I am is extremely dissapointed in you the Plan 9 user community and
the developers of Plan 9 itself. So much potential and you piss it away.
And to think I at one time held several of you in high esteem...
familiarity breeds contempt may be more true than I like to admit.

Where you people get this sort of dumbass shit is beyond me. Go back and
actually -READ- what I post instead of what your over-active defensive
imagination -thinks- it's reading. For a bunch of people that claim to be
so smart you are pretty damn dumb (at least in managing your emotions).
Must be a -very- large group of S's [2] here.

This is a -perfect- example of what my bitch is. The Plan 9 community is
so damned inbred it isn't funny, and it -will- cause Plan 9 to fail. -YOU-
will cause it to fail. Get this through your thick damned heads. This has
been clear to me for over two years. It's the reason when R3 came out I
asked if the license permits a core code split (I was told it does). I'll
let you figure that one out on your own since I posted my intent on this
very list. I'm worried about R4 because that license looks like it may
prevent a core code split so we won't be able to use any of it, too bad.

Another major aspect of why this group (NOT Plan 9) will fail is its
over-active focus on 'authority'. What Pike, et al says is fine, it isn't
gospel. What they want or don't want is nothing more than a suggestion.
Your blind faith that they'll lead you to Nirvana is just plain childish
and stupid. Your inability to even consider alternate approaches is also
stupid. Your defensive attitude when somebody goes their own way is
nothing more than a indication of your limited imagination and
understanding of the market. In my personal opinion the best thing that
could happen to Plan 9 is for Lucent (talk about dumbasses) to go under.

Question authority, it questions you.

Of course some of you -want- it to fail, you want it to remain a
'research' OS. I don't. I intend to go forward and push Plan 9, Inferno,
and other Open Source technology out into the market [3]. Kloc's and
-YOUR- expectations be damned. To that end Hangar 18 was established and
will continue to operate as long as I have air to breath and a better
solution doesn't present itself.

Jeesh. Maybe I should use smaller words and shorter sentences.

Hangar 18 exists to build a -THRIVING- user community that consists of a
global distributed computing cluster based on tit-for-tat [1]. It will
support both hobby and commercial users and participants. So far we're
doing ok. We've got something like 40+ machines available at this
time. We have half a dozen nodes here in Austin, a node in NY hooked
into NY Wireless (Hi Carlos!), a host of BSD machines sitting in
Missouri, & a very small group in N. Carolina (and given time I'm sure
I'll have a group in Beijing, PRC in the next couple of years). I am
trying to talk The Farmers into using Plan 9 to do one of the very first
'distributed raves' either next year or the following year. The major
problem is how to manage all this. We are currently  setting up a handfull
of root auth servers to handle that. We intend to support both r3 and r4
(just in case r4 does prevent a core code split). I have the folks who did
Mixmaster waiting in the wings now to port it over once we've got the
basic auth infrastructure working reliably. I'm also working to replace
the DES based crypto and put something in much harder to crack. The Austin
group is also working on a (very simple) hardware project related to
point-to-point open air  optical networking that is intended to be
submitted to one of the Linux magazines around the New Year. It will
involve Plan 9, Linux, and Windows.

A major problem with this group is your focus on the end of your nose. I
hope to look a tad farther out myself. If you want to at least try to
also, then consider Hangar 18.

How many of -YOU- have started local user groups? Pretty low number for
such -active- users and promoters of Plan 9. Plan 9 has been Open Source
for two (2) years and it still looks like Hangar 18 is the only user group
out there. And you have the temerity to crow about -YOUR- contribution?

You people keep focusing on kloc's and such ego trivia, one of these days
very soon you're going to wake up and Plan 9 will have run off and left you in
its dust.

And every damned one of you will still be welcome to participate and
contribute as -YOU- feel comfortable doing. We don't count kloc's or have
any other reason to exclude ANYONE who has the most trivial interest in
Plan 9, Open Technology and its social impact, or their individual
freedoms. We have a simple solution for folks like Doc as well. We revoke
their auth keys when they get out of line. We don't intend to build a
system and then let some Gang of Four take it over through political
wrangling. It's too damn important to trust to any single group.

Hope that at least helps answer your question.

Ta ta.


[1] When Plan 9 came out I went to the local Austin Linux Group and asked
    the then Board of Directors (consisting of the actual forming members
    of ALG) to start a SIG related to technology applications of Open
    Source technology. I was given permission to do just that, to the
    point of having an hour for discussion at the last meeting of the
    month as well as a seperate mailing list. Doc and his cronnie buddies
    then proceeded to use this as a reason to stage a coup and take over
    the group. They've now instituted dues and a whole host of other
    measures to keep control of the group (eg lose somebodies reciept for
    their dues and all of a sudden they have no say in the group). The
    group has seen a precipitous drop in activity and membership since
    then.

    And just to be clear he was one of the vocal anti-Plan 9 sect.

    I'm telling you folks, watch this one. He wants your virgins and gold.

[2] Myers-Briggs

[3] Read Lessig's "Code" for another set of reasons to not let Plan 9
    languish in this hot house from hell you've created. I've been an
    active political agitator for more than 20 years, and if the
    potentials of Plan 9 aren't exploited -NOW- they -NEVER- will be
    because the two forms of law will preclude it. Commercial and
    political entities will forclose on -YOUR- future while you sit around
    and piss your opportunity away on internecine bickering. I don't
    intend to let it happen if I can help it. You've got until about
    2006 to do something about it. Wake the hell up.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN, Size: 3023 bytes --]


Something somebody sent me...very 9P'ish ;) Somebody on the Cypherpunks
list the other day was asking about how to build anonymous search engines
and such. 9P being a perfect answer...with a little work.

> Let's finish building out the Net's directory
>   Whether we like it or not Google has become the Microsoft of search — in the sense that they now have a monopoly on the business. Who would even bother to compete at this point? Not even Microsoft.
>   It's a good thing that Google remains a caring steward of the Internet superstructure they provide for us all. But it's not good for all of us to have this much dependency on one company, no matter how nice that company is.
>   Although we regard it that way in a de facto sense, what Google does isn't Net infrastructure, which is stuff 1) Nobody owns, 2) Everybody can use, and 3) Anybody can improve. They only meet the second criterion.
>   So let's take some of the infrastructural burden off Google, and start thinking about the infrastructural ideals we've ignored while we've watched Google do such a good job in their absence.
>   The Net currently conceives its directory no deeper than the top DNS level. Everything to the right of that first / is a free-for-all. All of us have our own schemas, and most of the interesting ones change all the time. So do the contents at each directory level. What's in each directory should be knowable and searchable, if the author wants it to be — and not knowable or searchable if the author doesn't want it to be.
>   Think of the Net's complete directory as a dynamic public library that is deeply part of the Net's infrastructure.
>   I want a public card catalog that knows the schema of this site, and is informed (by me, automatically) when I post this item, and that reflects the new facts immediately and automatically. Then I want it to automatically notify search engines like Google, which can then go crawl and archive the contents for listing in their own privately owned but publicly exposed readers guides.
>   As for the licensing issues, I think this system needs to respect intentions expressed by authors through tools like those recommended by Creative Commons.
>   This all seems very do-able to me.
>   And now I want Craig, who has forgotten more about directory issues than I'll ever know, to come in and tell me how it will or won't work. (I've gotta draw him back into blogging somehow.)
>   The rest of you, too. What do you think?

http://doc.weblogs.com/2002/11/06#letsFinishBuildingOutTheNetsDirectory


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Dan Cross]

> [3] Read Lessig's "Code" for another set of reasons to not let Plan 9
>     languish in this hot house from hell you've created. I've been an
>     active political agitator for more than 20 years, and if the
>     potentials of Plan 9 aren't exploited -NOW- they -NEVER- will be
>     because the two forms of law will preclude it. Commercial and
>     political entities will forclose on -YOUR- future while you sit around
>     and piss your opportunity away on internecine bickering. I don't
>     intend to let it happen if I can help it. You've got until about
>     2006 to do something about it. Wake the hell up.

Wow.  You're one of those paranoid freaks who lives out in the boonies
and has a room full of assault rifles, aren't you?

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Dan Cross wrote:

> Wow.  You're one of those paranoid freaks who lives out in the boonies
> and has a room full of assault rifles, aren't you?

Not hardly.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Dan Cross]

> > Wow.  You're one of those paranoid freaks who lives out in the boonies
> > and has a room full of assault rifles, aren't you?
>
> Not hardly.

Really?!  See, that's kind of surprising because you sure act like it.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Scott Schwartz]

Friends, please, no flaming on the 9fans list.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Scott Schwartz wrote:

> Friends, please, no flaming on the 9fans list.

Agreed.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

> You can ask. The answer is it's an irrelevant (and tactlessly
> confrontational) question. It isn't a pissing contest.

You forgot.  Tact sucks.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> > You can ask. The answer is it's an irrelevant (and tactlessly
> > confrontational) question. It isn't a pissing contest.
>
> You forgot.  Tact sucks.

Exactly. You should learn to read betweent the lines. Hope it didn't hurt
too bad, not.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[nojkwspm]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:31:41PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:
> > > You can ask. The answer is it's an irrelevant (and tactlessly
> > > confrontational) question. It isn't a pissing contest.
> > You forgot.  Tact sucks.
> Exactly. You should learn to read betweent the lines. Hope it didn't hurt
> too bad, not.

Why would it hurt?  Russ has contributed a lot
to Plan 9, but all you've contributed is a lot
of hot air.  What we've read between the lines
suggests you ought to give it a rest.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[nigel]

> I can say that there is a significant contingent of Hangar 18 users
> who disagree with the assertion that the current VGA support is
> good enough.

Can I ask what Hangar 18 users have contributed to the
Plan 9 code base?

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 nigel@9fs.org wrote:

> > I can say that there is a significant contingent of Hangar 18 users
> > who disagree with the assertion that the current VGA support is
> > good enough.
>
> Can I ask what Hangar 18 users have contributed to the
> Plan 9 code base?

You can ask. The answer is it's an irrelevant (and tactlessly
confrontational) question. It isn't a pissing contest.

This sort of attitude does nothing but contribute to the failure of Plan 9
which makes -ANY- contribution that one might make a waste.

I'm glad your attitude isn't a popular one.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

Perhaps a more accurate response would have been:

	I have no plan, and to the best of my knowledge jmk
	has no plan, and since we're the two who have hacked
	on vga the most in recent years, you might well conclude
	that no one has any likely-to-be-executed plan to add
	DDC suport in the near future.

Saying things like that strikes me as overly pedantic, when
it should be taken as a given that I'm not speaking for any
collections of users anyway.

> Sigh, shouldn't the -user community- be making this decision...

The only decision I see in the post is about my deciding it wasn't
worth my time to work on vga further.  And I would argue that
I, not the -user community-, have every right to make decisions
about how I spend my time.

There's no policy anywhere.  The only decisions are about what
you do with your own time.  If you want to write or change
something, all the source is there.  Have at it.

> I can say that there is a significant contingent of Hangar 18 users
> who disagree with the assertion that the current VGA support is
> good enough.

That's fine.  Please, go ahead.  I would be more than happy
if the user community wrote more tools and did things like
this.  (Some have, and I am quite grateful.)  I agree that the
VGA support isn't good enough for many applications, but
_for me_, those applications aren't important enough to warrant
spending more time on vga.

Russ

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Russ Cox]

> but would it hurt to push your new vga code out? supposedly
> the benefit of open source is that someone else can do the
> work for you, however badly. if you're concerned with having
> to answer lots of stupid questions, that's a different issue :)

everyone keeps telling me that, but i'm just not convinced.
there's no magic here: if i put my unfinished programs
online, why is anyone else going to finish them for me?
i think open source projects get help from people on pieces
that they need (like a particular driver), but basic changes are
much less common.

anyway, /n/sources/contrib/v.  enjoy.

> anyway, hasn't the graphics world come to behave much the same
> way the CPU architecture world does? one graphics chip to rule
> them all? i just re-read 'systems software research is irrelevant'
> (http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/rob/utah2000.ps) and am under
> the impression that supporting the two major graphics card vendors
> suffices in 90% of the cases nowadays.

yeah, but those last 10% are 99% of the work.

Re: [9fans] ddc

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> anyway, /n/sources/contrib/v.  enjoy.

Thank you.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

[9fans] ddc

[paurea]

Is there any plan to integrate some kind of ddc communication between monitors
and vga cards in some near future?. If not, why?.
--
                 Saludos,
                         Gorka

"Curiosity sKilled the cat"

[9fans] EHLO EHLO

[presotto]

Leesten vehry carefoolly, I veel say thees only wance...

Our smtp daemon wasn't recognizing the AUTH=<...> parameter
that crept into the the MAIL FROM command with ESMTP.  I changed
smtpd.y to cope and did an update.

Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Dan Cross]

Must kill moose and squirrel.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Anthony Mandic]

Dan Cross wrote:
> 
> Must kill moose and squirrel.

	Oh, Rene! You are so powerful.

-am	© 2002

RE: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Nigel Roles]

It's nice to see that good BBC period drama is still popular around the
world.

-----Original Message-----
From: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu [mailto:9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu] On Behalf
Of Anthony Mandic
Sent: 15 October 2002 17:48
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO


Dan Cross wrote:
>
> Must kill moose and squirrel.

	Oh, Rene! You are so powerful.

-am	C 2002

RE: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[andrey mirtchovski]

I just watched "Blake's 7" couple of nights ago on PBS (north american
public television, commercial-free)!


On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Nigel Roles wrote:

> It's nice to see that good BBC period drama is still popular around the
> world.
>

Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Steve Kilbane]

> I just watched "Blake's 7" couple of nights ago on PBS (north american
> public television, commercial-free)!

Well of course! It's BBC - it's *supposed* to be seen sans commercials.

And while we're *so* far off topic, a shameless plug:

http://www.conventions.org.uk/Redemption

Right. Back to other stuff...

steve

Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Boyd Roberts]

Steve Kilbane wrote:

>Well of course! It's BBC - it's *supposed* to be seen sans commercials.
>
>
Err, sans publicit� ...

Re: [9fans] EHLO EHLO

[Anthony Mandic]

Yes, that was period drama at its finest - bloody awful.

andrey mirtchovski wrote:
>
> I just watched "Blake's 7" couple of nights ago on PBS (north american
> public television, commercial-free)!
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Nigel Roles wrote:
>
> > It's nice to see that good BBC period drama is still popular around the
> > world.

-am	� 2002