Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Keith Nash]

> I wonder if he could run riot in slash dot?

There is a random Slashdot story generator at

http://bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/index.html

The authors missed a trick by not generating a few reader comments.  Amongst the Slashdot posts with genuinely useful information there are always many more that comment on the license of the product featured in the story, its name, its license, the licensing history of the libraries that it calls, and of course its license.  It should be very easy to autogenerate these flamefests, because they have such limited scope.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> May MIMEDefang come to your rescue.  It's let me sleep at night in these

the really stupid thing about the MINE (sic) field is that you can parse it
with awk -- it looks recursive, but it's just linear, with some context.

i had to do it once for a security audit, for the rat squad ...

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jason Gurtz]

Adrian Tritschler wrote:

> We've just spent most of the morning dealing with W32/Palyh-a [1].

May MIMEDefang come to your rescue.  It's let me sleep at night in these
troubled times.

~Jason

--

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> I wonder if he could run riot in slash dot?

slash dot is a riot [LOL]

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[matt]

>
>
>
>	I wonder if he could run riot in slash dot?
>
>

Markov has posted enough auto-trolls already thanks

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Anthony Mandic]

"rob pike, esq." wrote:
>
> > the implementation (iirc), of said idea, was brucee and rob.
>
> Don P.  Mitchell had the markov program that inspired whoever had the
> original idea.  The code we used was rewritten by brucee.  I believe I
> wrote the shell script wrapper and, with brucee, created the account,
> mail box, etc.  Brucee did most of the daily management of MVS's wit.

	I wonder if he could run riot in slash dot?

-am	� 2003

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Adrian Tritschler]

Scott Schwartz wrote:

> | anyway, complaining to forged lines will just get the spammer into more grief,
> | not less.
>
> On the contrary.  Spammers have put my address on forged headers, and the
> double bounces and direct complaints that I got did absolutely nothing
> at all to discommode the spammers.  Please don't also add forged Received
> lines to the collatoral damage problem.

Definitely.

We've just spent most of the morning dealing with W32/Palyh-a [1].  It arrives
in mail that purports to come from support@microsoft.com  Klez was more fun,
it picked random addresses from people's Micorsoft Outbreak address book to
create its own to and from addresses.

Amazing how many people _still_ run attachments that come in the mail.  I
wonder if I put a bottle on the ground labelled "drink me"...

	Adrian

[1] http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32palyha.html

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Tritschler    mailto:Adrian.Tritschler@its.monash.edu.au
Latitude 38�S, Longitude 145�E, Altitude 50m,      Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, rob pike, esq. wrote:

> > the implementation (iirc), of said idea, was brucee and rob.
>
> Don P.  Mitchell had the markov program that inspired whoever had the
> original idea.  The code we used was rewritten by brucee.  I believe I
> wrote the shell script wrapper and, with brucee, created the account,
> mail box, etc.  Brucee did most of the daily management of MVS's wit.

While you guys are dropping names...

If you run across any of the AmSci guys, especially Shawn, please say "Hi,
from the Tesla folks. We're still building the lenses".


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

From: "George Bronnikov" <goga@bronnikov.mccme.ru>
> It's `A Love Affair With Cocaine' (same word in Russian - "roman").
> A fine book, really.  The translator must have been a moron.

roman -- same word in french.

i read the english translation.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Don P.  Mitchell had the markov program that inspired whoever had the
> original idea.  The code we used was rewritten by brucee.  I believe I
> wrote the shell script wrapper and, with brucee, created the account,
> mail box, etc.  Brucee did most of the daily management of MVS's wit.

yup

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> Don P.  Mitchell had the markov program that inspired whoever had the
> original idea.  The code we used was rewritten by brucee.  I believe I
> wrote the shell script wrapper and, with brucee, created the account,
> mail box, etc.  Brucee did most of the daily management of MVS's wit.

A reprint of the SA article is in "The Magic Machine" book by Dewdney.
In it, Dewdney says "Readers may also be interested in what is perhaps
Mark V.  Shaney's magnum opus: a 20-page commentary on the
deconstructionist philosophy of Jean Boudrillard".  I found a link to
an old email by rob.  MVS's dissertation sounds remarkably like some of
the recent discussions on 9fans.  Now I see how we ended up here.

http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/c-g.writing/cgw.baudrillard.txt

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[rob pike, esq.]

> the implementation (iirc), of said idea, was brucee and rob.

Don P.  Mitchell had the markov program that inspired whoever had the
original idea.  The code we used was rewritten by brucee.  I believe I
wrote the shell script wrapper and, with brucee, created the account,
mail box, etc.  Brucee did most of the daily management of MVS's wit.

-rob

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> I know but I was kind of hoping Mark would pop his head in
> on this silly thread. Maybe, if we ask nicely, brucee will
> have a word with him.

for the record, it was my idea.  after reading net.singles and
hearing of this markov chain text generator i said, well let's
snarf up some text, feed it into the markov chain, create
a persona and post it straight back at them.  this small detail
seemed to have been forgotten when it got written up in the
Scientific American.

the implementation (iirc), of said idea, was brucee and rob.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[George Bronnikov]

It's `A Love Affair With Cocaine' (same word in Russian - "roman").
A fine book, really.  The translator must have been a moron.

Sorry for OT.

	goga

On Sun, 18 May 2003, boyd, rounin wrote:

> err, Novel With Cocaine?
>
>     Bush "Still Likes Tasty Things"
>     While President Bush was in Russia, he enjoyed some candy.
>     This report also claims that "before coming to Russia Bush read
>     Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment in order to get a better
>     understanding of the Russian soul." I would have recommended he
>     read M. Agayev's Novel with Cocaine instead.
>
>     http://www.boss-tweed.com/2002_05_01_archives.html#77055291
>

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Anthony Mandic]

"boyd, rounin" wrote:
>
>  > Pity.
>
> it was deliberately ambiguous ...

	I know but I was kind of hoping Mark would pop his head in
	on this silly thread. Maybe, if we ask nicely, brucee will
	have a word with him.

-am	� 2003

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Fco.J.Ballesteros]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

Nope. Sorry. I didnt get the time to update it.
You probably have the last version. If any update it, I'll let 9fans
know, so dont worry.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1794 bytes --]

From: Joel Salomon <salomo3@cooper.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:06:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1030519085933.9437A-100000@robin.cooper.edu>

> Of course, Nemo's tome on the Plan 9 kernel will give you a lot of
> insight into Plan 9, in a manner similar to how Lions' papers gave
> one insight into Unix.
Speaking of which, is there a newer version out? The version I have is
Notes on the Plan 9 tm 3rd edition Kernel Source
January 8, 2001

I don't mean to pressure anyone, just a friendly inquiry.
--Joel

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Joel Salomon]

> Of course, Nemo's tome on the Plan 9 kernel will give you a lot of
> insight into Plan 9, in a manner similar to how Lions' papers gave
> one insight into Unix.
Speaking of which, is there a newer version out? The version I have is
Notes on the Plan 9 tm 3rd edition Kernel Source
January 8, 2001

I don't mean to pressure anyone, just a friendly inquiry.
--Joel

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

 > Pity.

it was deliberately ambiguous ...

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Anthony Mandic]

"boyd, rounin" wrote:
>
> > What? Shaney?
>
> nah, the operating system :)

	Pity.

-am	� 2003

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> What? Shaney?

nah, the operating system :)

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Anthony Mandic]

"boyd, rounin" wrote:
>
> From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> > processes running on other processors besides the cpu on the diskless
> > workstation with shared namespaces that are not tied to any of the processors
> > the processes are running on (the second most important distinction),
>
> pure MVS ... :(

	What? Shaney?

-am	� 2003

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 252 bytes --]

"Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0305181129000.1252-100000@einstein.ssz.com...
> > pure MVS ... :(
>
> Strawman. ...

Mark V. Shaney was not made out of straw.  maybe you mean the tin man?

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Boyd must be superhuman.

i have not yet begun to fight :)

http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/trivia02a.htm

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[rob pike, esq.]

> The average human response time is something like 200mS.

Boyd must be superhuman.

-rob

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Russ Cox]

> The average human response time is something like 200mS. If there is a
> problem then it's not 38mS latency, there is something else dragging it
> down.

This is true.  There are too many round trips in most
graphics operations.  That multiplies the 38ms up to
something barely bearable.  But like I said, the latency of
those operations is the real barrier to using the system
remotely.

Russ

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 17 May 2003, Russ Cox wrote:

> I think the real problem with a free Plan 9 server is
> latency.  We can figure out the system robustness
> problems, but the network latency is much harder
> to get around.  I'm typing this in my apartment,
> on a drawterm session over my DSL line to
> plan9.bell-labs.com.  The latency is about 38ms.
> At this distance drawterm is usable but noticeably
> sluggish.  But 38ms is probably near best case
> for an open Plan 9 server across the internet.

The average human response time is something like 200mS. If there is a
problem then it's not 38mS latency, there is something else dragging it
down.

> You could use a text connection, but that's just
> not a faithful experience.
>
> VNC is a little better but still leaves something to
> be desired.

And until somebody pushes it, such as a public server, the problem will
never be solved.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[northern snowfall]

>
>
>anyway, complaining to forged lines will just get the spammer into more grief,
>not less.
>
How will that work if noone knows the real sender and virii bots
are sending the messages. If you can't prove who is behind the
email, there is noone to legally target. Even if you can prove
a party probably sent a given spam, you still have the burden
of proving they were at the console that sent the original
message. That can't be done with the net bot movements and
other, older, forms of spamming.
Don

>

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Scott Schwartz]

| anyway, complaining to forged lines will just get the spammer into more grief,
| not less.

On the contrary.  Spammers have put my address on forged headers, and the
double bounces and direct complaints that I got did absolutely nothing
at all to discommode the spammers.  Please don't also add forged Received
lines to the collatoral damage problem.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

ok, i admit -- i know nothing about active spam killing.

end of discussion.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Be careful---standard spammer practice is to put forged Received lines
> on the junk they send.  Same deal with From and envelope sender.

anyway, complaining to forged lines will just get the spammer into more grief,
not less.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Be careful---standard spammer practice is to put forged Received lines
> on the junk they send.  Same deal with From and envelope sender.

nope, dws killed a lotta spammers back in '96/'97 and it was low tech:

    http://www.insultant.net/fr.inter.net/code/dws.html

an rc script in fact.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Scott Schwartz]

Boyd writes:
| passive anti-spam -- it's time for active anti-spam.  code it in limbo
| and complain to the sender and all the hosts it passed through.

Be careful---standard spammer practice is to put forged Received lines
on the junk they send.  Same deal with From and envelope sender.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Can yacc even handle 822?

i've found a version, but it's a little large to post to the list.

i could hang it off insultant.net and post the URL.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> Can yacc even handle 822?

yes and no.  the addresses yes, but the Received: headers are a context
sensitive grammar -- a nasty piece of work, but i have a plan;  no more
passive anti-spam -- it's time for active anti-spam.  code it in limbo
and complain to the sender and all the hosts it passed through.

that should shut 'em down :)

it's tricky, but with limbo it can't be _that_ hard -- err, oops, i just forgot
i'm one of those roswell conspiritors ...

btw: repo is crudely re-hosted and when i sam it into shape i'll update
the wiki, as is insultant.net

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> > rfc821 (or was it 822) the other day...all i have to say is: wtf!?
>
> would you like the yacc address parser?

Can yacc even handle 822?  I didn't think the subset of the grammar
for the Received: headers was in LALR(1).

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> rfc821 (or was it 822) the other day...all i have to say is: wtf!?

would you like the yacc address parser?

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> rfc821 (or was it 822) the other day...all i have to say is: wtf!?

822 ... an 'interesting' read ...

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Andrew]

well, thats email in general, as Dan said, qmail is fine, modulo a
few issues. but you're absolutly right, email is a disaster...i read
rfc821 (or was it 822) the other day...all i have to say is: wtf!?

although i dont think qmail itself is bad, its fast (regardless of the
multiple tcp delivery thing), its secure (theres an idea!), and its
pretty simple no bells and whistles and not much bloat, theres not much
more one could ask for given the underlying circumstances.

thanks for the input though ;)


Andrew

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:35:21PM +0200, boyd, rounin wrote:
> > maybe Im going to look stupid for asking this, but whats wrong with
> > qmail?
>
> 4 chars ... SMTP -- Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
>
> no files, no 8 bit chars, nothing but 7 bit ASCII.
>
> then we get the 150 pages of the 4 MINE (sic) rfcs and we
> know who the guilty are and why and it is no longer SIMPLE.
>
> POP ... Post Office Protocol -- simple
>
> IMAP ... DISASTER, it tries to be a file server but it's only dealing with mail.
>
> FTP ... File Transfer Protocol
>
> QED
>

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21 bytes --]

limbo meets POP ...

[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="pop.bundle"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
	Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="pop.bundle"

[-- Attachment #2.2: pop.bundle.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 6702 bytes --]

# To unbundle, run this file
echo pop.b
sed 's/.//' >pop.b <<'//GO.SYSIN DD pop.b'
-# (C) Copyright Boyd Roberts, Bruce Ellis, November 1998
-
-implement Pop;
-
-include	"sys.m";
-include	"bufio.m";
-include	"string.m";
-include	"pop.m";
-
-sys:	Sys;
-bufio:	Bufio;
-str:	String;
-
-Iobuf:	import bufio;
-
-stderr:	ref Sys->FD;
-rx, tx:	ref Iobuf;
-
-debug:	con 0;
-
-init(): string
-{
-	sys = load Sys Sys->PATH;
-	if (sys == nil)
-		return "load $Sys failed";
-	stderr = sys->fildes(2);
-	bufio = load Bufio Bufio->PATH;
-	if (bufio == nil)
-		return sys->sprint("could not load %s: %r", Bufio->PATH);
-	str = load String String->PATH;
-	if (str == nil)
-		return sys->sprint("could not load %s: %r", String->PATH);
-	return nil;
-}
-
-fetch(user, host, password, dir: string, del: int): (string, big)
-{
-	dest := sys->sprint("tcp!%s!%d", host, Pop->POP3);
-	(ok, C) := sys->dial(dest, nil);
-	if (ok < 0)
-		return (sys->sprint("dial '%s' failed: %r", dest), big 0);
-
-	rx = bufio->fopen(C.dfd, Sys->OREAD);
-	if (rx == nil)
-		return (sys->sprint("bufio read open '%s' failed: %r", dest), big 0);
-	tx = bufio->fopen(C.dfd, Sys->OWRITE);
-	if (tx == nil)
-		return (sys->sprint("bufio write open '%s' failed: %r", dest), big 0);
-
-	(e, s) := reply(0);
-	case e {
-	ERR =>
-		return(s, big 0);
-	OK =>
-		if (debug)
-			sys->print("%s\n", s);
-	}
-	
-	(e, s) = request(CMD_USER, user);
-	case e {
-	ERR =>
-		return(s, big 0);
-	OK =>
-		if (debug)
-			sys->print("%s\n", s);
-	}
-
-	(e, s) = request(CMD_PASS, password);
-	case e {
-	ERR =>
-		return(s, big 0);
-	OK =>
-		if (debug)
-			sys->print("%s\n", s);
-	}
-
-	(e, s) = request(CMD_STAT, nil);
-	case e {
-	ERR =>
-		return(s, big 0);
-	OK =>
-		if (debug)
-			sys->print("%s\n", s);
-	}
-
-	messages := big 0;
-	size := big 0;
-	(n, l) := sys->tokenize(s, " ");
-	case n {
-	1 =>
-		sys->print("%d message%s for '%s@%s', maildrop size unknown.\n", int messages, plural(messages), user, host);
-		messages = big hd l;
-
-	2 =>
-		messages = big hd l;
-		size = big hd tl l;
-
-	* =>
-		return (sys->sprint("unknown number of messages for '%s@%s'.\n", user, host), big 0);
-	}
-
-	fetched: list of string;
-	err := "";
-getem:
-	for (i := big 1; i <= messages; i++) {
-		(e, s) = request(CMD_RETR, string i);
-		case e {
-		ERR =>
-			return(s, big 0);
-		OK =>
-			if (debug)
-				sys->print("%s\n", s);
-		}
-		f := filename(dir, string i);
-		fd := sys->create(f, Sys->OWRITE, 0);
-		if (fd == nil) {
-			err = sys->sprint("could not create '%s'", f);
-			break;
-		}
-
-		for (;;) {
-			(e, s) = reply(1);
-			case e {
-			ERR =>
-				err = s;
-				break getem;
-			DATA =>
-				if (debug)
-					sys->print("%s\n", s);
-				if (sys->fprint(fd, "%s\n", s) < 0) {
-					err = sys->sprint("could not write '%s': %r", f);
-					sys->remove(f);
-					break getem;
-				}
-
-			END =>
-				s = readable(f, fd);
-				if (s != nil)
-					sys->fprint(stderr, "warning: %s\n", s);
-				fd = nil;
-				fetched = string i :: fetched;
-				continue getem;
-			}
-		}
-	}
-
-	messages = big 0;
-
-	if (del)
-	{
-		while (fetched != nil)
-		{
-			s = hd fetched;
-			fetched = tl fetched;
-	
-			(e, s) = request(CMD_DELE, s);
-			case e {
-			ERR =>
-				sys->remove(filename(dir, s));
-			OK =>
-				messages++;
-			}
-		}
-	}
-
-	(e, s) = request(CMD_QUIT, nil);
-	if (e != OK && err == nil) {
-		if (messages != big 0)
-			err = sys->sprint("%bd message%s: ", messages, plural(messages));
-		err = sys->sprint("%swarning: %s", err, s);
-	}
-
-	return (err, messages);
-}
-
-reply(data: int): (int, string)
-{
-	r := rx.gets('\n');
-	if (r == nil)
-		return (ERR, sys->sprint("pop server read failed: %r"));
-	(n, l) := sys->tokenize(r, "\r\n");
-	if (n != 1) {
-		if (n == 0 && data)
-			return (DATA, nil);
-		return (ERR, "reply missing CRLF");
-	}
-	line := hd l;
-	if (debug)
-		sys->print("<-- %s\n", line);
-
-	if (data) {
-		if (line == REP_TCHAR)
-			return (END, nil);
-		return (DATA, line);
-	}
-
-	(cmd, rest) := str->splitl(line, " ");
-	rest = rest[1:];
-	case cmd {
-	REP_OK =>
-		return (OK, rest);
-	REP_ERR =>
-		return (ERR, rest);
-	* =>
-		return (ERR, "protocol error");
-	}
-}
-
-request(cmd, arg: string): (int, string)
-{
-	s := cmd;
-	if (arg != nil)
-		s += " " + arg;
-	if (debug)
-		sys->print("--> %s\n", s);
-	if (tx.puts(s + "\r\n") < 0 || tx.flush() < 0)
-		return (ERR, sys->sprint("pop server write failed: %r"));
-	return reply(0);
-}
-
-plural(n: big): string
-{
-	if (n == big 1)
-		return nil;
-
-	return "s";
-}
-
-readable(f: string, fd: ref Sys->FD): string
-{
-	(ok, d) := sys->fstat(fd);
-	if (ok < 0)
-		return sys->sprint("could not fstat '%s': %r", f);
-
-	d.mode |= 8r600;
-	if (sys->wstat(f, d) < 0)
-		return sys->sprint("could not wstat '%s': %r", f);
-
-	return nil;
-}
-
-filename(dir, file: string): string
-{
-	return dir + "/" + file;
-}
//GO.SYSIN DD pop.b
echo pop.m
sed 's/.//' >pop.m <<'//GO.SYSIN DD pop.m'
-# (C) Copyright Boyd Roberts, Bruce Ellis, November 1998
-
-Pop: module
-{
-	PATH:		con "pop.dis";
-	POP3:		con 110;
-	OK:		con 0;
-	END:		con 1;
-	DATA:		con 2;
-	ERR:		con -1;
-
-	CMD_DELE:	con "DELE";
-	CMD_LAST:	con "LAST";
-	CMD_NOOP:	con "NOOP";
-	CMD_PASS:	con "PASS";
-	CMD_QUIT:	con "QUIT";
-	CMD_RETR:	con "RETR";
-	CMD_RSET:	con "RSET";
-	CMD_STAT:	con "STAT";
-	CMD_USER:	con "USER";
-
-	REP_OK:		con "+OK";
-	REP_ERR:	con "-ERR";
-	REP_TCHAR:	con ".";
-
-	init:		fn(): string;
-	fetch:		fn(user, host, password, dir: string, del: int): (string, big);
-	plural:		fn(n: big): string;
-};
//GO.SYSIN DD pop.m
echo test.b
sed 's/.//' >test.b <<'//GO.SYSIN DD test.b'
-# (C) Copyright Boyd Roberts, Bruce Ellis, November 1998
-
-implement Test;
-
-include	"sys.m";
-include	"draw.m";
-include	"pop.m";
-
-sys:	Sys;
-pop:	Pop;
-
-stderr:	ref Sys->FD;
-
-Test: module
-{
-	init:	fn(nil: ref Draw->Context, nil: list of string);
-};
-
-init(nil: ref Draw->Context, nil: list of string)
-{
-	sys = load Sys Sys->PATH;
-	stderr = sys->fildes(2);
-	pop = load Pop Pop->PATH;
-	if (pop == nil)
-		exits(sys->sprint("could not load %s: %r\n", Pop->PATH));
-	s := pop->init();
-	if (s != nil)
-		exits(s);
-	n: big;
-	(s, n) = pop->fetch("user", "host", "password", ".", 0);
-	if (s != nil)
-		exits(s);
-	if (n != big 0)
-		sys->print("%bd message%s\n", n, pop->plural(n));
-}
-
-exits(s: string)
-{
-	sys->raise("fail: " + s);
-}
//GO.SYSIN DD test.b

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> The biggest single problem with it is that DJB

QED

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

call me a luddite and i'll be off straight to hell with dan and we'll be smiling
...

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> > oxymoron
>
> maybe Im going to look stupid for asking this, but whats wrong with
> qmail? Sure its a unix tool, and djb isnt always the nicest guy in the
> world, but it seems to work pretty darn well, compared with
> say...sendmail.

Qmail is okay.  The biggest single problem with it is that DJB is
firmly convinced that the thing to do is avoid latency, because SMTP is
slow.  So, he opens up many TCP connections to a single remote server
at once.  The result is that the remote server can get severely
overloaded, which makes it defer delivery.  You end up with this
happening in a slowly attenuating cycle, which can actually increase
latency.  Maybe this has been fixed with a qmail patch; I don't know.

Postfix solves this problem by using a slow-start style algorithm to
find the point at which it's transfering the most mail to a remote site
in parallel, without overloading it.  You trade a little bit of
increased latency at the beginning for greater efficiency overall.  But
Postfix is getting kind of big and bloated, itself.  :-(

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> maybe Im going to look stupid for asking this, but whats wrong with
> qmail?

4 chars ... SMTP -- Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

no files, no 8 bit chars, nothing but 7 bit ASCII.

then we get the 150 pages of the 4 MINE (sic) rfcs and we
know who the guilty are and why and it is no longer SIMPLE.

POP ... Post Office Protocol -- simple

IMAP ... DISASTER, it tries to be a file server but it's only dealing with mail.

FTP ... File Transfer Protocol

QED

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Andrew]

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:21:07PM +0200, boyd, rounin wrote:
> > "Life With Qmail"
>
> oxymoron
>
maybe Im going to look stupid for asking this, but whats wrong with
qmail? Sure its a unix tool, and djb isnt always the nicest guy in the
world, but it seems to work pretty darn well, compared with
say...sendmail.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> "Life With Qmail"

oxymoron

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

hanger 18?

err, area 51 ...

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> > I don't understand.  I'm trying to engage in dialogue with you,
>
> No Dan you are most assuredly not.

I just think you can't answer my questions.

	- Dan C.

(Oh, what the hell, I might as well tell the truth: You're right.  I'm
part of the vast underground conspiracy to try and distract you from
your true destiny: The liberation of the human race from the oppressive
yoke of ignorance.  Only you, with Plan 9 by your side, can do it.  You
are...The One.  The prophecy has foretold all, and it's useless to deny
it any longer.  We're at the dawning of a new era, one in which all the
classical definitions of computer science will be rewritten to conform
to Jim's grand vision.  I must go now; they will be after me for
revealing The Truth.  Don't listen if Scott Schwartz or anyone from
Bell Labs posts ordering me to stop: they're really in on it, too.
Goodbye, Jim, you won't hear from me again as I'll be caught and
reprogrammed.  Good luck!  Remember that I was truly your faithful
servent after the apocolyptic end which is coming, that only you can
bring about!)

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[northern snowfall]

>
>
>Well, I recommend, ``A Farewell to Arms'' and ``Of Mice and Men,'' two
>of my favorite books.  Also, ``We'', if you can get a hold of one of
>the modern translations is a fantastic read (a pre-cursor to the
>prototypical Orwellian novel).  If you mean computer books....  Don't
>ask me; computer books put me to sleep.
>
I recommend anything from Agatha Christie. Especially from the
Poirot mysteries. I just can't get enough of that dame :)
Don

>

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

err, Novel With Cocaine?

    Bush "Still Likes Tasty Things"
    While President Bush was in Russia, he enjoyed some candy.
    This report also claims that "before coming to Russia Bush read
    Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment in order to get a better
    understanding of the Russian soul." I would have recommended he
    read M. Agayev's Novel with Cocaine instead.

    http://www.boss-tweed.com/2002_05_01_archives.html#77055291

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, boyd, rounin wrote:

> From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> > processes running on other processors besides the cpu on the diskless
> > workstation with shared namespaces that are not tied to any of the processors
> > the processes are running on (the second most important distinction),
>
> pure MVS ... :(

Strawman. I'm not claiming -any- of this is new or unique in and of
itself.

The collection is. That is what makes Plan 9 unique.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dan Cross wrote:

> > > ...and this is why.  We can't expect anything but an attack after
> > > questioning your views.  This isn't a particularly good way to advance
> > > your argument or start dialogue, Jim.
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black.
>
> I don't understand.  I'm trying to engage in dialogue with you,

No Dan you are most assuredly not.

Go back and read the very first sentence of your initial response. At no
point have you been anywhere near your claimed goals.

Try not to gag on your own hubris.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, matt wrote:

> >I see what you're saying, but I think you missed my point.  It might
> >help if you reviewed a book on operating systems basics; it's pretty
> >clear you don't have much of a formal background here.  I can recommend
> >a titles, if you'd like.

> can you recommend them anyway 8)
>
> and anyone else while we're on the subject
>
> I can't find any decent books at my local bookstores that I can buy and
> read for the sake of it i.e. not for reference

I keep a list of suggested reading, it's been transfered over to the
Hangar 18 site, it does need a little editing:

http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18/links.html

I'm very fond of Silberschatz myself (ie Dinosaur Book).


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> >I see what you're saying, but I think you missed my point.  It might
> >help if you reviewed a book on operating systems basics; it's pretty
> >clear you don't have much of a formal background here.  I can recommend
> >a titles, if you'd like.
>
> can you recommend them anyway 8)

Sure.  I think the new edition of Tanenbaum's, ``Modern Operating
Systems'' is quite good, as is Avi Silberschatz's, ``Operating Systems
Concepts,'' now in it's 6th Edition.  Silberschwatz also has a another
book, in it's first edition: ``Applied Operating System Concepts'' that
is similar in nature to his earlier book, but targeted to a slightly
different audience.  It's my impression that the former concentrates a
little more on theory, while the latter talks about applications of
that theory.  Either is probably fine if you don't have a lot of
background in OS's.

Also, there are at least two books that talk about operating system
implementation in great detail: Tanenbaum's, ``Operating Systems:
Design and Implementation,'' in it's second edition, and John Lions's,
``Lions' Commentary on Unix 6th Edition, with Source Code.''  The
former is the famous (infamous?) Minix book; the latter is the infamous
(famous?) Lions' Papers, which go through the Unix kernel line by
line.  Both of these books provide great insight into operating system
internals.  The Lions book is obviously dated; Tanenbaum updated the
Minix book a few years ago.

Of course, Nemo's tome on the Plan 9 kernel will give you a lot of
insight into Plan 9, in a manner similar to how Lions' papers gave
one insight into Unix.

Those will get people started.  After that, there are a few other
decent books, but it's probably more fruitful to go directly to the
research literature.

> and anyone else while we're on the subject
>
> I can't find any decent books at my local bookstores that I can buy and
> read for the sake of it i.e. not for reference
>
> the only book on my current list is "Life With Qmail" and that doesn't
> sound too exciting

Well, I recommend, ``A Farewell to Arms'' and ``Of Mice and Men,'' two
of my favorite books.  Also, ``We'', if you can get a hold of one of
the modern translations is a fantastic read (a pre-cursor to the
prototypical Orwellian novel).  If you mean computer books....  Don't
ask me; computer books put me to sleep.

	- Dan C.

(Though I have managed to get through, ``The Elements of Programming
Style,'' ``The Practice of Programming,'' ``Programming Pearls,''
``The Pragmatic Programmer,'' and a few others.  The first three I
recommend to anyone serious about programming computers.)

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> processes running on other processors besides the cpu on the diskless
> workstation with shared namespaces that are not tied to any of the processors
> the processes are running on (the second most important distinction),

pure MVS ... :(

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[boyd, rounin]

> I know I shouldn't get into this....

yeah, real warren commission stuff :(

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> > ...and this is why.  We can't expect anything but an attack after
> > questioning your views.  This isn't a particularly good way to advance
> > your argument or start dialogue, Jim.
>
> Pot, kettle, black.

I don't understand.  I'm trying to engage in dialogue with you, and
all I get back are insults, a condescending attitude, and flames.  It's
been like this since you showed up on 9fans, as far as I can tell.

> > > > Yes.  It's executing on that machine.
> > >
> > > No, only -part of it is 'on that machine'. Your archaic viewpoint is
> > > showing.
> >
> > So, what's missing?

You keep cutting off my statements.  Here's the rest:

	It's memory image is stored on that machine: all the program
	text, data, and the stack; the processor state including the
	PSL and all the machine registers, etc is local.  Even the I/O
	devices it does I/O through are local.  The fact that it gets
	the data it manipulates from someplace else isn't relevant to
	the fact that it's running on that machine.

Then you go on to say:

> Per process namespace (THE most important distinction)

Which is part of where it gets the data it manipulates.  Again, that's
irrelevant to the idea of a program executing on a computer.

> processes running on other processors besides the cpu on the diskless
> workstation with shared namespaces that are not tied to any of the processors
> the processes are running on (the second most important distinction),

Same.

> transitive mounts of not only files but hardware (the third most important
> distinction).

Same.

> "If all you know is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."

If you want to change the definition of what ``hammer'' means because
you're confused about what a hammer is, you're going to be in for a
rough time.

It's obvious we're talking at cross-purposes here.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[matt]

>
>
>I see what you're saying, but I think you missed my point.  It might
>help if you reviewed a book on operating systems basics; it's pretty
>clear you don't have much of a formal background here.  I can recommend
>a titles, if you'd like.
>
>

can you recommend them anyway 8)

and anyone else while we're on the subject

I can't find any decent books at my local bookstores that I can buy and
read for the sake of it i.e. not for reference

the only book on my current list is "Life With Qmail" and that doesn't
sound too exciting

m

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dan Cross wrote:

> > > I know I shouldn't get into this....
> >
> > You're such an ass Dan.
>
> ...and this is why.  We can't expect anything but an attack after
> questioning your views.  This isn't a particularly good way to advance
> your argument or start dialogue, Jim.

Pot, kettle, black.

> > > Yes.  It's executing on that machine.
> >
> > No, only -part of it is 'on that machine'. Your archaic viewpoint is
> > showing.
>
> So, what's missing?

Per process namespace (THE most important distinction)

processes running on other processors besides the cpu on the diskless
workstation with shared namespaces that are not tied to any of the processors
the processes are running on (the second most important distinction),

transitive mounts of not only files but hardware (the third most important
distinction).

"If all you know is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail."


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> > I know I shouldn't get into this....
>
> You're such an ass Dan.

...and this is why.  We can't expect anything but an attack after
questioning your views.  This isn't a particularly good way to advance
your argument or start dialogue, Jim.

> > Yes.  It's executing on that machine.
>
> No, only -part of it is 'on that machine'. Your archaic viewpoint is
> showing.

So, what's missing?  It's memory image is stored on that machine: all
the program text, data, and the stack; the processor state including
the PSL and all the machine registers, etc is local.  Even the I/O
devices it does I/O through are local.  The fact that it gets the data
it manipulates from someplace else isn't relevant to the fact that it's
running on that machine.

> > It's effectively the same situation as a program running on a diskless Unix
> > machine with the filesystem served by NFS.
>
> No, it's not.

Okay, then.  Why not?

> > So you agree that you will allow someone to run code on your machine,
>
> Absolutely, go read the whole point of Hangar 18 at,
>
> http://open-forge.org
>
> http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18
>
> What do you think 'distributed processing', 'community', and 'tit for tat'
> mean?

You cut off the rest of my sentence, which explained what I was getting
at.  Here's the rest:

	...you just won't provide them with a filesystem.  So they
	can run a copy of /bin/rc on your machine if they like.

> Oh yeah, you don't have a clue.

Wow, insults.  That's a great way to advance your viewpoint.

> You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the Plan 9 community here.

So, Jim, can we expect you at the BoF in San Antonio?  Looking forward
to meeting you!

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Jim Choate wrote:

> You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the Plan 9 community here.
>

You're a perfect example of what's wrong with the world outside the Plan 9
community. Dan's fine, you're not.

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dan Cross wrote:

> I know I shouldn't get into this....

You're such an ass Dan.

> Yes.  It's executing on that machine.

No, only -part of it is 'on that machine'. Your archaic viewpoint is
showing.

> It's effectively the same situation as a program running on a diskless Unix
> machine with the filesystem served by NFS.

No, it's not.

> So you agree that you will allow someone to run code on your machine,

Absolutely, go read the whole point of Hangar 18 at,

http://open-forge.org

http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18

What do you think 'distributed processing', 'community', and 'tit for tat'
mean?

Oh yeah, you don't have a clue.

You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the Plan 9 community here.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

I know I shouldn't get into this....

> > I don't understand what this means; doesn't the ability to start a
> > process on a remote machine (``process pool'') mean you can start a
> > shell on it?
>
> Plan 9 has per process namespace, and there is really nothing that says
> the namespace that a particular process is running on a particular piece
> of hardware are shared. In other words the resources for a given shell
> don't necessarily have to reside on that machine. In other words the
> process server doesn't have to share any of its kfs resources into the
> namespace of the process). The namespace doesn't even have to come from a
> single machine. So, if you've got a process that has it's I/O connected to
> your machine, and various namespaces transitively mounted from machines
> other than the process server executing the job, can you really say the
> shell is running on 'that machine'?
>
> I'd say "No".

Yes.  It's executing on that machine.  It's effectively the same
situation as a program running on a diskless Unix machine with the
filesystem served by NFS.

So you agree that you will allow someone to run code on your machine,
you just won't provide them with a filesystem.  So they can run a copy
of /bin/rc on your machine if they like.

> If you have a process server executing a job that spawns multiple
> processes, Tower of Hanoi or a factorial might be a job that would do for
> an example, and those processes are running on different machines; can
> you say that the program runs on 'that machine'?
>
> I'd say "No",

Yes.  What it does, such as starting jobs on other machines, is
irrelevant.  It itself is still running on that machine.

> You're running a 'shell on a machine' and that machine hiccups, with
> traditional operating systems the only result is to throw an error
> condition and halt. On Plan 9 it's possible that in cases that if a
> machine were to die the namespace resources (which we'll assume aren't on
> the process server native) are saved and the machine that started the
> process would simply re-init that job on another processer, without the
> user even knowing about it. Is that running that program 'on a machine'?
>
> I'd say "No".

It's possible, perhaps, but doesn't happen now.  At least not without
writing code.  But it would be possible to write the same code on any
number of systems; amoeba comes to mind as an example of a system that
already approximates that sort of behavior.

But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, the program is running on
a machine somewhere.  The only thing you're saying is new is that you
don't care what machine it's running on.

> There are many other examples I could think of, you will too; eventually.

I'm sorry, but I think you're confused about basic definitions.  What
it means for a piece of code to be running on a computer is that it's
executing on that computer.  Whether you can do clever things behind to
scenes to give the illusion of it being transparantly relocatable to
another computer is irrelevant.

Even then, I'm disappointed that all you're talking about is restarting
a program on a different machine.  If you were talking about generalizing
/proc to replicate process state across multiple machines operating
in lockstep in real time, I might start to be kind of impressed.

> Plan 9 has the unique advantage of being able to create a distributed
> virtual machine. This means that where the job runs is irrelevant, and
> where the resources of the namespace exist is irrelevant. Plan 9 is not so
> much 'where' but 'how to impliment'.

That's not unique.  Condor, MOSIX, Amoeba, and other systems implement
similar functionality.

> To worry about the specific machine is a pretty archaic viewpoint that is
> not really compatible with understanding what one can get out of Plan 9.
>
> Plan 9 is a -distributed- operating system. This means that you have to
> think of 'process clouds' and many resources clustered together to form a
> namespace. The fact the namespace is -per process- is what takes it a step
> above the 'run a shell on a machine' perspective.

Again, you're misunderstanding the definition of what it means to run
a shell on a machine.

> You have to get past thinking of Plan 9 as a OS 'on a machine' and think
> of it as a OS -across machines-. Note the plural in that, it's critical to
> understanding the true power of the OS from the perspective of the user.
> [1]

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

> If you really want to have an OS on -a machine- then Plan 9 will bring you
> nothing of interest. Stick with traditional operating systems. If you want
> to join a -community of resources- then look into Plan 9, it will surpise
> you. [2]

Or Amoeba.

> Hope that helps clear up your confusion...;)

I see what you're saying, but I think you missed my point.  It might
help if you reviewed a book on operating systems basics; it's pretty
clear you don't have much of a formal background here.  I can recommend
a titles, if you'd like.

> [1] This goes right to the heart of one of my issues with the Plan 9
> community here with regard to lack of understanding of 'user' space as
> compared to looking at everything as a 'developer' space issue. Such is
> the flaw of having a goal of keeping a technology limited to a niche (ie
> research OS).
>
> [2] I've mentioned this distinction many times in the past, and it amazes
> me that many long time users of Plan 9 still don't 'get it'.

And how.

	- Dan C.

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dan Cross wrote:

> I don't understand what this means; doesn't the ability to start a
> process on a remote machine (``process pool'') mean you can start a
> shell on it?

Yes, if you want to look at it by the 'process tied to machine' viewpoint.
Plan 9 means much more. The concept of 'starting a shell on it' is a
rather non-distributed way of thinking about Plan 9 though. An archaic
viewpoint if you will.

Plan 9 has per process namespace, and there is really nothing that says
the namespace that a particular process is running on a particular piece
of hardware are shared. In other words the resources for a given shell
don't necessarily have to reside on that machine. In other words the
process server doesn't have to share any of its kfs resources into the
namespace of the process). The namespace doesn't even have to come from a
single machine. So, if you've got a process that has it's I/O connected to
your machine, and various namespaces transitively mounted from machines
other than the process server executing the job, can you really say the
shell is running on 'that machine'?

I'd say "No".

If you have a process server executing a job that spawns multiple
processes, Tower of Hanoi or a factorial might be a job that would do for
an example, and those processes are running on different machines; can
you say that the program runs on 'that machine'?

I'd say "No",

You're running a 'shell on a machine' and that machine hiccups, with
traditional operating systems the only result is to throw an error
condition and halt. On Plan 9 it's possible that in cases that if a
machine were to die the namespace resources (which we'll assume aren't on
the process server native) are saved and the machine that started the
process would simply re-init that job on another processer, without the
user even knowing about it. Is that running that program 'on a machine'?

I'd say "No".

There are many other examples I could think of, you will too; eventually.

Plan 9 has the unique advantage of being able to create a distributed
virtual machine. This means that where the job runs is irrelevant, and
where the resources of the namespace exist is irrelevant. Plan 9 is not so
much 'where' but 'how to impliment'.

To worry about the specific machine is a pretty archaic viewpoint that is
not really compatible with understanding what one can get out of Plan 9.

Plan 9 is a -distributed- operating system. This means that you have to
think of 'process clouds' and many resources clustered together to form a
namespace. The fact the namespace is -per process- is what takes it a step
above the 'run a shell on a machine' perspective.

You have to get past thinking of Plan 9 as a OS 'on a machine' and think
of it as a OS -across machines-. Note the plural in that, it's critical to
understanding the true power of the OS from the perspective of the user.
[1]

If you really want to have an OS on -a machine- then Plan 9 will bring you
nothing of interest. Stick with traditional operating systems. If you want
to join a -community of resources- then look into Plan 9, it will surpise
you. [2]

Hope that helps clear up your confusion...;)


[1] This goes right to the heart of one of my issues with the Plan 9
community here with regard to lack of understanding of 'user' space as
compared to looking at everything as a 'developer' space issue. Such is
the flaw of having a goal of keeping a technology limited to a niche (ie
research OS).

[2] I've mentioned this distinction many times in the past, and it amazes
me that many long time users of Plan 9 still don't 'get it'.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Dan Cross]

> http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18
>
> We don't provide free shell accounts since this really doesn't make a lot
> of sense with regard to Plan 9. What we can do is provide a auth server
> and related resources (ie process pool and community namespaces). We also
> provide services for developers such as webpages and code management tools
> (ie CVS).

I don't understand what this means; doesn't the ability to start a
process on a remote machine (``process pool'') mean you can start a
shell on it?

	- Dan C.

[9fans] Re: Free Plan 9 "shell" accounts?

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Martin Kielhorn wrote:

> Has there ever been  an attempt  to provide free accounts
> on a Plan 9 network for people curious to "play" with it.

http://open-forge.org (this site is going away later in the year due to
the poor job market)

or,

http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18

We don't provide free shell accounts since this really doesn't make a lot
of sense with regard to Plan 9. What we can do is provide a auth server
and related resources (ie process pool and community namespaces). We also
provide services for developers such as webpages and code management tools
(ie CVS).

We are in a re-engineering cycle at the moment due to some changes in
participants. We expect to have the auth server moved to the SSZ domain
sometime during the week of June 16-20. Later in the year the current
primary home site, Open Forge, will be going away due to lack of
sponsorship. This means that SSZ will return as the primary host of the
webpage and services.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------