[9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

i heard this soundbite on the BBC.  hmm ...
--
MGRS 31U DQ 52572 12604

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jack Johnson]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:48:55 +0200, boyd, rounin <boyd@insultant.net> wrote:
> i heard this soundbite on the BBC.  hmm ...

Though Linux may not have been the best choice, I'm not against it.

Software has become part of the infrastructure of most of the
governments of the world, and the thought of having that software
under such majority control by a single vendor (any single vendor, not
just the current one) is a pretty scary thought.

Helping destitute nations become self-supportive is a good thing, and
I think open source, royalty- and license-fee-free software is a good
foundation for building an infrastructure.

-Jack

If Excel is the #1 most-used spreadsheet in the world, which is #3?

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> Helping destitute nations become self-supportive is a good thing, and
> I think open source, royalty- and license-fee-free software is a good
> foundation for building an infrastructure.

oh i agree, but plan 9 would have been the right choice.

they're still getting 20 year old junk after all.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Tim Newsham]

> > Helping destitute nations become self-supportive is a good thing, and
> > I think open source, royalty- and license-fee-free software is a good
> > foundation for building an infrastructure.
>
> oh i agree, but plan 9 would have been the right choice.

You're saying that plan 9 in its current state is the best choice for end
users in govt, business and personal use in third world countries?  Plan 9
is a great system by programmers for programmers, but it is hardly ready
for prime time.  Choosing linux, on the other hand, gives them something
that they can use right now.

> they're still getting 20 year old junk after all.

Linux has a lot of features in it that werent around in 1984.

Tim N.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> Choosing linux, on the other hand, gives them something
> that they can use right now.

once they've configured the DNS & sendmail for starters ...

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[C H Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 51 bytes --]

ah, but the UN is used to never-ending combat zones

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2748 bytes --]

From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:16:36 +0200
Message-ID: <015f01c49068$f7c83c30$79fa7d50@SOMA>

> Choosing linux, on the other hand, gives them something
> that they can use right now.

once they've configured the DNS & sendmail for starters ...

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com> writes:
> ah, but the UN is used to never-ending combat zones

Hey!  Oh, wait...nevermind.

Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[George Michaelson]

so when the UN buys pens in bulk for use in the developing world, does it buy
gold-plated lalique designer-edition fountain pens, or bic disposables?

-George

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net> writes:
> so when the UN buys pens in bulk for use in the developing world, does it buy
> gold-plated lalique designer-edition fountain pens, or bic disposables?

Beats me.  In the Marine Corps, we get pencils.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> so when the UN buys pens in bulk for use in the developing world, does it buy
> gold-plated lalique designer-edition fountain pens, or bic disposables?

I would guess whichever is cheaper to buy and to own. 

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[George Michaelson]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:03:40 -0700 Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:

>> so when the UN buys pens in bulk for use in the developing world, does it buy
>> gold-plated lalique designer-edition fountain pens, or bic disposables?
>
>I would guess whichever is cheaper to buy and to own. 


you're too honest. they buy from the vendor who gives them the best kickback.

-George

-- 
George Michaelson       |  APNIC                 |  See you at APNIC 18
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton    |  Nadi, Fiji
Phone: +61 7 3858 3150  |  QLD 4064 Australia    |  31 Aug -3 Sep 2004
  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199  |  http://www.apnic.net  |  www.apnic.net/meetings/18

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jeff Sickel]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 11:24 PM, Dan Cross wrote:

> George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net> writes:
>> so when the UN buys pens in bulk for use in the developing world, 
>> does it buy
>> gold-plated lalique designer-edition fountain pens, or bic 
>> disposables?
>
> Beats me.  In the Marine Corps, we get pencils.

That's a good thing... lead/graphite doesn't wash away with 
water/salts/acids as easily.

For the larger picture: would folks at the UN even know that BSD, let 
alone Plan 9, exists?  I'd wager they don't as even people who have 
been exposed to alternative operating systems are likely to have never 
even heard of them.  Linux, for better or worse, has mindset 
market-share because people have been throwing enough money into the 
advertising realm to make the name/brand known.

To quote/paraphrase an old friend's words:

Microsoft learned long ago that it was better to spend a dollar on 
marketing than on development.

jas

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[andrey mirtchovski]

> For the larger picture: would folks at the UN even know that BSD, let 
> alone Plan 9, exists?  I'd wager they don't as even people who have 
> been exposed to alternative operating systems are likely to have never 
> even heard of them. 

today's pull brings another fortunes gem:

	(Okay, Plan 9 isn't Linux, but it's a close relative).

and unfortunately it's only funny because it's true -- people really
believe every other non-Microsoft OS nowadays is some offshoot of
Linux.  can't blame them though, nor expect everybody to run to the
store and pick up a unix history book...

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Zigor Salvador]

Informaticiens Sans Frontières is putting together a new Linux distro to
support third world countries' special needs. It's called LIFE. More
info at http://isf.cern.ch, just in case you're curious.

Zigor

Quoting 'Informaticiens Sans Frontières':

LIFE (Linux Integrated Free Environment)

ISF focuses exclusively on Free Open Source solutions. It doesn’t make
sense to deliver platforms equipped with proprietory software in areas
where poverty and economical crisis makes it impossible or at least
extremely difficult to purchase or upgrade the software required to use
the resources. This is particularly true when considering that free OSS
software has reached an equal (if not higher) power and efficiency than
commercial.

LIFE is not just an operating system, but a complete environment,
bringing a full scale solution to cover a range of needs and
requirements. It is based on an Open Source Linux distribution
(Knoppix), and it features three user “levels” (basic, advanced,
administrator). A basic user is shown only the applications needed for
basic tasks, and to learn the computing environment better. Typically a
basic desktop includes a web browser, a document and e-mail writer, and
an e-learning tool. Most basic users of cybercafés only need to access
e-mail or the web. In particular, we cope for situations with poor
connectivity by supplying a document and e-mail writer that can work
offline, avoiding to keep connected when accessing a mail provider on
the web for extensive periods of time. The e-learning tool must be able
to teach first time users their way through the system, and also to
teach illiterate users how to read, write and type. This is the first
step needed for a democratisation of ICT. Basic teaching kits will be
modular and targeted to different user ages. A “child” and “adult”
alphabetisation curricula will be provided as integral part of the
environment.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dick Davies]

* Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu> [0924 04:24]:
> C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com> writes:
> > ah, but the UN is used to never-ending combat zones
> 
> Hey!  Oh, wait...nevermind.
> 
> Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?

Linux admins are two a penny?

-- 
Alas, I am dying beyond my means.
		-- Oscar Wilde, as he sipped champagne on his deathbed
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[ron minnich]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dan Cross wrote:

> Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry to
> push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?

Order of importance, with each thing decreasing at least 10x each time
- non-technical pubs
- technical pubs
- The Cool Table (as in grade school)
- third party apps
- good from a technical point of view
- superior design

so the last item is 1e-6 of the first item. Now you know how these things 
happen.

ron

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> Beats me.  In the Marine Corps, we get pencils.

a pencil is actually a very good choice because of
its reliablity.  NASA used to used them in their space
missions until the advent of the Fisher Space Pen:

    http://www.spacepen.com/usa/index2.htm

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 46 bytes --]

it also usefully doubles as a pointed stick.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2729 bytes --]

From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:27:27 +0200
Message-ID: <02e601c49122$e9b3d950$79fa7d50@SOMA>

> Beats me.  In the Marine Corps, we get pencils.

a pencil is actually a very good choice because of
its reliablity.  NASA used to used them in their space
missions until the advent of the Fisher Space Pen:

    http://www.spacepen.com/usa/index2.htm

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Wes Kussmaul]

(c) Can't technology win just this once?
>
> Order of importance, with each thing decreasing at least 10x each time
> - non-technical pubs
> - technical pubs
> - The Cool Table (as in grade school)
> - third party apps
> - good from a technical point of view
> - superior design
>
> so the last item is 1e-6 of the first item. Now you know how these things
> happen.

Ron, you left out the top item:

- people with imagination and design sense and general intelligence not
being able to communicate effectively with / capture the imagination of the
masses of people less blessed, as for instance

- editors of non-technical pubs
- editors of technical pubs
- arbiters of The Cool Table
- creators of third party apps

There are so many natural thought leaders in the Plan 9 and *BSD
communities. We need more who, like Dan Geer and Bruce Schneier, are willing
to actually do what thought leaders do, add the voice of intelligent design
to the public debate. Otherwise the only voices they hear are those of
vendor PR flaks.

Wes Kussmaul

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[andrey mirtchovski]

> There are so many natural thought leaders in the Plan 9 and *BSD
> communities. We need more who, like Dan Geer and Bruce Schneier, are willing
> to actually do what thought leaders do, add the voice of intelligent design
> to the public debate. Otherwise the only voices they hear are those of
> vendor PR flaks.

i invite you to participate in any IT-related discussion on any public
forum on the internet (Slashdot is usually the best (and worst) place
to do it) and observe the reactions -- suddenly everyone is an expert
at everything and everyone has their own opinion which won't change no
matter how much sanity you throw at them.  not even people with proven
track record as being smart (such as the ones above) will be listened
to.  enough people will tell them 'you don't know anything, this is
how it's done...' to throw them off the conversation.

the only reasonable way to filter out the people who know what they're
talking about from the cheerleeding crowd is to throw in some serious
mathematics -- that's the only thing everyone is scared of :)

andrey, still a cheerleader :)

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Adrian Tritschler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

| Charles Forsyth wrote:
|>>Beats me.  In the Marine Corps, we get pencils.

|> a pencil is actually a very good choice because of
|> its reliablity.  NASA used to used them in their space
|> missions until the advent of the Fisher Space Pen:

| it also usefully doubles as a pointed stick.

Don't say that or the airlines won't let me take a pencil on board an
aircraft!

They already won't allow metal cutlery (although Qantas seems to let you
have a metal spoon and fork, but a plastic knife).

I hate to think what the marines can do with a pencil if required...

Now what did that have to do with plan9 again?

	Adrian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBN6JoIRiOsXzK05QRArgRAJ9FwPEuCYxLQ0jSMl2Zh6b46wJRBQCgz7nQ
lsp+sP6262RxdGF0aFRTZes=
=RRnA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: ajft.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 134 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:Adrian Tritschler
n:Tritschler;Adrian
email;internet:ajft@ajft.org
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Wes Kussmaul]

> > We need more who, like Dan Geer and Bruce Schneier, are willing
> > to actually do what thought leaders do, add the voice of intelligent
design
> > to the public debate. Otherwise the only voices they hear are those of
> > vendor PR flaks.
>
> i invite you to participate in any IT-related discussion on any public
> forum on the internet (Slashdot is usually the best (and worst) place
> to do it) and observe the reactions -- suddenly everyone is an expert
> at everything and everyone has their own opinion which won't change no
> matter how much sanity you throw at them.

How much leverage do you get in Slashdot? How many journalists will you
influence?

For every Slashdot know-it-all there are ten thousand everyday users who
know they don't have the smarts or time or curiosity to dig into the
workings of their computer. They pick up a pc magazine or they call their
cousin who knows someone who actually posted something on Slashdot. Who from
the Plan 9 / Inferno / *BSD / Eros world is talking to these people?

> not even people with proven
> track record as being smart (such as the ones above) will be listened
> to.  enough people will tell them 'you don't know anything, this is
> how it's done...' to throw them off the conversation.

Bruce Schneier is very much listened to (and very well off from book sales
to the masses.) If he had chosen operating systems rather than firewalls and
intrusion detection systems to talk and write about, Plan 9 would be getting
a lot of attention from journalists and users. He does have a love for the
spotlight, which is a good thing for everybody.

> the only reasonable way to filter out the people who know what they're
> talking about from the cheerleeding crowd is to throw in some serious
> mathematics -- that's the only thing everyone is scared of :)

Serious mathematics such as that used in Blowfish and Twofish? You know, the
symmetric algorithms created by Bruce Schneier, one of which as I recall was
a finalist for AES...?

Schneier doesn't do that. He knows he is much smarter than his audience, and
his audience knows it too. They trust his judgement, and they appreciate the
fact that he takes the time to communicate with them in their language,
without rubbing it in by using math that they will never be able to follow.
He addresses another level of audience in his email newsletter, and uses
language and concepts appropriate to that somewhat more sophisticated
audience. He does refute the know-it-alls and charlatans, but his public
discourse isn't about confrontation, it's about enlightenment. That is
thought leadership.

Sorry, this is getting too flamey. It's meant to be constructive. Lots of
ordinary computer users would love to hear the Plan 9 story.

wk

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Wes Kussmaul wrote:

> Sorry, this is getting too flamey. 
>

no worries -- we just ended up talking about different sets of target
audience...

to explain my previous post: i attempted to answer the question 'why
wasn't a "better" os than linux considered' and ended up with 'because
everyone in IT is a know-it-all' (not including any of you guys,
naturally :)

andrey

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

Jeff Sickel <jas@corpus-callosum.com> writes:
> That's a good thing... lead/graphite doesn't wash away with 
> water/salts/acids as easily.

It also won't mark on a laminated map, which makes land nav with one
hard.  It also sucks when it breaks out in the field; sharpening a #2
pencil with a ka-bar is an interesting challenge.  Everyone ends up
taking pen anyway.

> For the larger picture: would folks at the UN even know that BSD, let 
> alone Plan 9, exists?  I'd wager they don't as even people who have 
> been exposed to alternative operating systems are likely to have never 
> even heard of them.  Linux, for better or worse, has mindset 
> market-share because people have been throwing enough money into the 
> advertising realm to make the name/brand known.
> 
> To quote/paraphrase an old friend's words:
> 
> Microsoft learned long ago that it was better to spend a dollar on 
> marketing than on development.

I think you're absolutely right.  That's what I find so depressing....

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> writes:
> > Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> > to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> > why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> > one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?
> 
> Linux admins are two a penny?

At that level, are there really that many differences between Linux
and FreeBSD?  I was a Unix sysadmin for a bunch of years, and I usually
found it easier to keep BSD running than Linux, but at the end of the
day there wasn't too much difference between them.  Maybe I'm too old
school or something.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[George Michaelson]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:13:09 -0400 Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu> wrote:

>Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> writes:
>> > Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
>> > to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
>> > why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
>> > one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?
>> 
>> Linux admins are two a penny?
>
>At that level, are there really that many differences between Linux
>and FreeBSD?  I was a Unix sysadmin for a bunch of years, and I usually
>found it easier to keep BSD running than Linux, but at the end of the
>day there wasn't too much difference between them.  Maybe I'm too old
>school or something.
>
>	- Dan C.

the marginal OT here is that since Free and Net BSD both adopted a SYSV rc.d/
form (albiet very mangled) with dependency chaining, within certain limits
no, the admin differences are scant and about flavour for many things. betwixt
the penguin and the cute devil.

but of course, when it breaks, the POLA for either side can be broken hunting
for hints on how this OS does task <x> 

problem is that we're dumbing down everything these days. an admin coming from
Linux probably expects a GUI to do stuff. and I mean G-UI. While NetBSD and
FreeBSD have tiny amounts of UI to admin stuff, (nothing much as AIX for instance)
the vast majority of admin is still vi on a file. 

So you can find that the skillset to keep an L-box running is lower, cheaper
than to keep a B-box running, absent major problems. YMMV.

-George

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> writes:
> Order of importance, with each thing decreasing at least 10x each time
> - non-technical pubs
> - technical pubs
> - The Cool Table (as in grade school)
> - third party apps
> - good from a technical point of view
> - superior design
> 
> so the last item is 1e-6 of the first item. Now you know how these things 
> happen.

Oh great.  ``The Wall Street Journal says it's the next big thing!
Quick!  Ship it to Haiti!''  Yeah, that's progress.

So an anthropology professor who taught at Columbia told me a story
about UNICEF in a ``development'' project in India somewhere.  They
decided to do away with the stair-step system usd to access a well in
some remote village because they thought the idea of people crawling
down into the well to get their water wasn't very hygenic.  So, they
walled up the stairwell leading into the well and `purified' the water
source with a bunch of chemicals.  Patting themselves on the back for
this service to mankind, they proceeded to leave --- without putting a
bucket mechanism in the well for the people to get their water.  It
didn't take very long for the wall they'd put up to get torn down, much
to the dismay of the local UN reps.

She told us about another project where a bunch of flushable toilets
were installed *in the middle of a village* somewhere.  UNICEF couldn't
figure out why no one was using them....

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

"boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net> writes:
> a pencil is actually a very good choice because of
> its reliablity.  NASA used to used them in their space
> missions until the advent of the Fisher Space Pen:

Oh, what the hell.  This is way off topic, but....

It's also a good weapon of opportunity.  So's a pen for that matter,
but a standard wooden #2 pencil has certain advantages in that arena.
Then again, I'd rather have an e-tool, but hey.

The Fisher Space Pen is pretty neat.  :-)

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> Then again, I'd rather have an e-tool, but hey.

sharpened, 'natch.

> The Fisher Space Pen is pretty neat.  :-)

yup.  fits nicely into the CWU-36/P shoulder pocket.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jack Johnson]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:09:35 -0600, andrey mirtchovski
<mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> to do it) and observe the reactions -- suddenly everyone is an expert
> at everything and everyone has their own opinion which won't change no
> matter how much sanity you throw at them.

That's one thing I like about this list: no matter how biased at least
some of us are, we seem ready to listen to some new sanity.

Or insanity.  Hm.  Maybe we'll just listen to anything.  As opposed to
pretending to listen.

> the only reasonable way to filter out the people who know what they're
> talking about from the cheerleeding crowd is to throw in some serious
> mathematics -- that's the only thing everyone is scared of :)

Hey, just talking about talking about serious mathematics makes me scared.

-Jack, serious math weenie

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dick Davies]

On 3 Sep 2004, at 03:13, Dan Cross wrote:

> Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> writes:
>>>
>>>  (b) why Linux?  Why not
>>> one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this 
>>> once?
>>
>> Linux admins are two a penny?
>
> At that level, are there really that many differences between Linux
> and FreeBSD?  I was a Unix sysadmin for a bunch of years, and I usually
> found it easier to keep BSD running than Linux, but at the end of the
> day there wasn't too much difference between them.  Maybe I'm too old
> school or something.

By Linux, I meant RedHat, since that seems to be the one PHBs have
heard of., unfortunately. The main sysadmin  pain is rpm rather than 
ports
or pkgsrc system - Debian's apt being slightly less objectionable
  (but who uses that)?

But as an earlier poster mentioned, that's a dollar of marketing for 
you...


--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> heard of., unfortunately. The main sysadmin  pain is rpm ...

i love that.  so secure.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jack Johnson]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 01:30:45 +0100, Dick Davies
<rasputnik@hellooperator.net> wrote:
> > found it easier to keep BSD running than Linux, but at the end of the
> > day there wasn't too much difference between them.  Maybe I'm too old
> > school or something.
> 
> By Linux, I meant RedHat, since that seems to be the one PHBs have
> heard of., unfortunately. The main sysadmin  pain is rpm rather than
> ports
> or pkgsrc system - Debian's apt being slightly less objectionable
>   (but who uses that)?

At work, we use Debian "stable" exclusively for our Linux installs
just because it seems to be the most sane/stable, but we're not
chasing commercial software vendors and it's all server-side stuff, so
no UI feature envy by users or anything of the sort.

For the *BSDers in the crowd who might be forced to support Linux, I
can't personally recommend it but this seems very promising:

http://www.crux.nu/

Looks like BSD-style initscripts, ports, everything you'd expect
except the kernel and GNU utils everywhere.

Speaking of which, anyone using plan9ports on Darwin (sans Aqua)?  My
wife's iBook just went Tango Uniform (looks like the logic board
issue, even though I *thought* the serial # is out of range) and now
I'm hunting for HFS+ support....

-Jack

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> At work, we use Debian "stable" exclusively for our Linux installs

the concept of 'stable' worries me.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 dvd@davidashen.net wrote:
> 
>> This because the fashion wears out a bit — things which should not be done
>> in mixed-content markup instead of plain attributed lists are not. But those
>> are minority of cases.
> 
> based on the measurement of XY projects that do zzz with qxr and SNR of 
> 0 .


Yes, because on measurement of  google's responses to XML and Lisp. The idea
of lisp was good, but it didn't solve the problem of unification of serial
representation, interchange and tree operation primitives.

XML did fall from the Ugly Tree. But it is the only fruit you have; others just
don't do the job.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

>>>Interestingly enough, a number of projects that were XML-based are now 
>>>S-expression based, so I guess it works for them too. 
> 
> several of us have used non-xml syntax (eg, Xduce) even when one
> of the possible physical representations might be xml.  the scanner
> is tiny, the syntax can be used directly in a programming language without
> itching or retching, and what matters is the underlying abstraction anyway.

How widely is Xduce used?

> xml provides (slightly weird) trees; s-expressions are trees not lists.

Everything is a tree. At the time of SGML, some used to define SGML syntax
to be parentheses based, that is, s-expressions you like so much. But see below.


> all of the non-xml forms i know seem to be clear cut about whether a
> character is or is not part of a string.  i like the precision, myself.

> the power comes from tree operations, not the syntax of the tree
> representation (but see below).

The power comes from both. Not having to think about a parser is a great
relief.

> it would be fair to say that xml's providing a dtd
> was an advance.  

The opposite. The fact XML does NOT need a DTD is one of its most
important advantages, and that is why it only has one lexical syntax
instead of many.

(it was SGML really, but by eliminating `&' XML
> eliminated a real nuisance.)  fortunately, that helpful step was subsequently
> itself eliminated by inventing Xschema, so i don't need to be all that fair!

There is also Relax NG, http://relaxng.org/ .

> but was really a cunningly disguised way of getting people to stop
> using XML directly (let alone XSLT) and start using lisp and s-expressions.

Yes, that's useful sometimes; in my Relax NG (compat syntax) based XML
validator I use embedded Scheme interpreter for extensible data types
library; the library is based on complete implementation of XML Schema
Unicode regular expressions I wrote in r5rs scheme.

Different tools are good for different jobs. But this is not because s-expressions
are better than XML. XML is a tree model and a serialization format; the former
gives tools for validation, the latter gives tools for parsing and generation. Both
work amazingly well; in cases when neither is necessary and a different syntax
is preferrable, for example, for human perception, a different syntax can be
used. 

XML with its data model and serialization format is the best available solution
for most tasks. Where human eyes and brain are involved, parentheses- or
curly-braces-based syntax is frequently used; with equivalent XML representation for the ease of validation and interchange convenience.

XML is like automatic garbage collection: while there are always proponents
of 'better' hand-crafted memory management discplines, automatic gc always
wins because it makes the developer free from the trouble of memory leaks.
At the price of lower performance and greater memory requirements in certain
cases. 

Just make something that works better.

David

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[ron minnich]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 dvd@davidashen.net wrote:

> This because the fashion wears out a bit — things which should not be done
> in mixed-content markup instead of plain attributed lists are not. But those
> are minority of cases.

based on the measurement of XY projects that do zzz with qxr and SNR of 
0 ... or just an unsubtianted claim?

I can only relate my own experience and that of others I know, I won't 
claim anything else. But I'm not sure I buy the 'minority of cases' 
argument.

Now, on an emotional level, I will claim that XML fell out of the Ugly
Tree and hit every branch on the way down. But I can't substantiate that 
one.

ron

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

> Actually, I'm saying it with the confidence of someone who's been using 
> them for 5 years now to monitor clusters ranging in size from 4 nodes to 
> 1408 nodes, at far higher data rates than anything else I've seen or used. 
> 
> It's worked for me. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, a number of projects that were XML-based are now 
> S-expression based, so I guess it works for them too. 
> 

This because the fashion wears out a bit — things which should not be done
in mixed-content markup instead of plain attributed lists are not. But those
are minority of cases.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Charles Forsyth]

>>Interestingly enough, a number of projects that were XML-based are now 
>>S-expression based, so I guess it works for them too. 

several of us have used non-xml syntax (eg, Xduce) even when one
of the possible physical representations might be xml.  the scanner
is tiny, the syntax can be used directly in a programming language without
itching or retching, and what matters is the underlying abstraction anyway.
xml provides (slightly weird) trees; s-expressions are trees not lists.
all of the non-xml forms i know seem to be clear cut about whether a
character is or is not part of a string.  i like the precision, myself.

>>adoption of XML-based techniques.  One has now powerful and uniform
>>tools to operate on the tree model — much more powerful than Lisp
>>offers for lists — and completely automated serialization and parsing

i'm fairly sure s-expressions are in fact trees, not lists.
in practice, lisp programs have operated on tree structures as long as i can remember,
and in fact, given the code is data approach of some lisp programs,
including lisp compilers, that's surely just the point.

the power comes from tree operations, not the syntax of the tree
representation (but see below).
many forms of powerful tree processing, including tree automata, were
done long before xml or even sgml came along.
in fact, when xml came along, i applied tree automata techniques i'd used
years before to try to get a handle on it (as did many others).

it would be fair to say that xml's providing a dtd
was an advance.  (it was SGML really, but by eliminating `&' XML
eliminated a real nuisance.)  fortunately, that helpful step was subsequently
itself eliminated by inventing Xschema, so i don't need to be all that fair!

as a nod towards joining the two camps, there was a pleasant article
in Dr Dobbs in March, that purported in the title to be about `fostering little languages'
but was really a cunningly disguised way of getting people to stop
using XML directly (let alone XSLT) and start using lisp and s-expressions.

they didn't mention Plan 9, but then again, neither have we.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Jack Johnson wrote:
> 
>> Someone here suggested a good alternative to XML a while back, but I
>> can't find it in the archives.  Could someone point me in the right
>> direction?
> 
> S-expressions. We've had quite a few people write to us and pick up Matt's 
> s-expression library, in many cases replacing messy XML with simple 
> s-expressions.

You are saying it with confidence of someone who has just invented new
elegant notation — s-expressions — to replace messy XML. The use of 
s-expressions for configuration and serialization was one of the major
causes of failure of Lisp as a mainstream engineering tool.

XML is ugly, messy, inelegant and a clear demonstration of bad taste
of its creators.  Being such a bloody mess, it manifestly solves a
number of problems which were unsolved for the long time before wide
adoption of XML-based techniques.  One has now powerful and uniform
tools to operate on the tree model — much more powerful than Lisp
offers for lists — and completely automated serialization and parsing
for data and text markup.  XML is bad, but it is better than anything
used for the same purpose before it.  Or instead of it.

When every configuration file in a system has its own configuration syntax,
and the syntax is not specified anywhere but in the source code, and slight
changes to the source code invalidate the syntax in marginal cases, and typos
and bugs in the configurations are not reported in any way but by mystically
unexpected behavour of a program which used to work just yersterday and
only a slight change has been made to the string tokenizer — and it is how
things happen, unfortunately, in the dream OS of most subscribers of this
list — then the bloody mess of XML wins.

David Tolpin

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[ron minnich]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Jack Johnson wrote:

> Someone here suggested a good alternative to XML a while back, but I
> can't find it in the archives.  Could someone point me in the right
> direction?

S-expressions. We've had quite a few people write to us and pick up Matt's 
s-expression library, in many cases replacing messy XML with simple 
s-expressions.

ron

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jack Johnson]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:49:32 +0100, Charles Forsyth
<forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >>that XML configuration is good -- the syntax is hard too read, but at least
> >>it is predictable
> 
> it depends where you put the spaces and newlines in that!

Someone here suggested a good alternative to XML a while back, but I
can't find it in the archives.  Could someone point me in the right
direction?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Charles Forsyth]

>>that XML configuration is good -- the syntax is hard too read, but at least
>>it is predictable

it depends where you put the spaces and newlines in that!

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[lucio]

> They are in: kfs -- the kfs as it is now and as it was half a year ago cannot
> recover cleanly from a filesystem crash. I've modified the code so that it
> can. Network libraries -- a few buffer overruns in various buffers which I
> stubmled upon due to too long host names in my stress test; don't exactly
> remember what else but can try and go through the patches. My iTuner Plan9
> box kept hanging  until I found what I thought was a race related to fossil
> fs and changed the code so that it does not. It does not hang now.
> 
I, for one, would be very grateful to have such issues addressed.
Please let me encourage you to submit the fixes.  Or even just the
issues, if necessary.

> Smaller fixes include:
> 
>  rewriting the code that parses various configuration
> files so that I at least understand what is going on -- for example, the timezone
> file requires extra blank line in the end if numerical timezone adjustments
> are absent; and the zone name is of fixed length (3 characters), while the
> time zone I am in (AMST right now) is four characters long. ndb configuration
> parses insanely, and experience with Plan9 is actually what made me think
> that XML configuration is good -- the syntax is hard too read, but at least
> it is predictable -- you don't have to use acid to understand configuration.
> 
Again, I think I am not alone in wishing for a more robust Plan 9
distribution, please let the list know what is needed or desirable.

> My acme mail keeps stopping working after a few days, saying that it
> cannot execute a directory, I didn't yet find time to fix it, I will because I
> still need Plan9 working as an exotic platform for testing.
> 
I use acme mail almost exclusively and have had no such trouble,
perhaps it has already been fixed?  I have a niggling suspicion it
has.

> Wiki code, both the server and the acme plugin, was unsuitable for any
> language but English, and contained many bugs which rendered it unusable -
> I rewrote significant parts of the code to make it working.
> 
Etc.

This list has seen its share of arrogance displayed, but I'm not aware
that genuine concerns have ever been dismissed out of hand (give or
take such judgement calls as Rob Pike's total rejection of APE) and I
really would appreciate your submission of any and all failures,
preferably with fixes where possible.

Speaking purely for myself, but hoping not to be just a voice in the
wilderness.

++L

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

>>>It is better than Plan 9 because I don't have to debug its kernel to
>>>do my day-to-day application programming; better than a recent Linux
> 
> what were those kernel bugs?  i can't remember seeing (that many) patches
> on the list or in patches

The patches were not here because it was partly before the patch utility 
had been made working and the list didn't like my ape/diff+ape/patch submittions. Partly after I lost interest in Plan9 as in production system for my programming. Strictly speaking, they are not in the kernel expect for a patch for my specimen of nvidia which didn't like something (I don't remember exactly what, can go
through the patches).

They are in: kfs -- the kfs as it is now and as it was half a year ago cannot
recover cleanly from a filesystem crash. I've modified the code so that it
can. Network libraries -- a few buffer overruns in various buffers which I
stubmled upon due to too long host names in my stress test; don't exactly
remember what else but can try and go through the patches. My iTuner Plan9
box kept hanging  until I found what I thought was a race related to fossil
fs and changed the code so that it does not. It does not hang now.

Smaller fixes include:

 rewriting the code that parses various configuration
files so that I at least understand what is going on -- for example, the timezone
file requires extra blank line in the end if numerical timezone adjustments
are absent; and the zone name is of fixed length (3 characters), while the
time zone I am in (AMST right now) is four characters long. ndb configuration
parses insanely, and experience with Plan9 is actually what made me think
that XML configuration is good -- the syntax is hard too read, but at least
it is predictable -- you don't have to use acid to understand configuration.

My acme mail keeps stopping working after a few days, saying that it
cannot execute a directory, I didn't yet find time to fix it, I will because I
still need Plan9 working as an exotic platform for testing.

Wiki code, both the server and the acme plugin, was unsuitable for any
language but English, and contained many bugs which rendered it unusable -
I rewrote significant parts of the code to make it working.

C compiler's parser gives occasionally error messages which, while indicate
errors, are completely unrelated to errors' sources -- I reported that to the
list, you can browse the source archive.


Overall, my feeling that everytime I start doing something less trivial than ls
(which displays the same file several times on occasion, but it is not a bug,
but simply a wrong implementation of globbing in rc), I have to fix a few
glitches here and there. This is not hard -- I am used to do it in some of
the programs I use, but it is annoying.

The main advantage of FreeBSD is that when I bought that Fujitsu T1120,
I only had to add the identifier of my decoder to ac97.c, tweak ACPI code
a bit so that it turns off power on shutdown (actually I just merged in the
changes from the CURRENT branch); additionally, if my memory does not
betray me, I had a few hard hours forcing mono to install, and finally 
changed the gacutil's code a bit on a nearby Linux machine. That was all,
it happened three months ago, and I didn't touch others' code in FreeBSD
since then; I just use it.

The main problem with Plan9 is that I cannot just use it; it does not work
without fixing.

David

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dan Cross]

Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> writes:
> 
> > Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> > to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> > why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> > one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?
> 
> Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
> "superior"?  I would really like to know.  (Let's take it as granted
> that OpenBSD is more "secure".  Fine.  What other criteria are there?)

Well, that's an interesting question you've raised.  My criteria are
organization and maturity of the source base, quality of the source
code itself, design direction, and packaging of the system.  It's been
my experience that Linux distributions aren't put together well, and
the quality of the source code (particularly in the kernel: there be
dragons) varies wildly.  Some is quite good, while some is just
downright nasty.  I guess I've around in enough open source packages
that come as standard parts of most Linux distributions to be
suspicious of anything I find in there, while the BSD code tends to
be of uniformly higher quality and show a greater attention to
detail.

However, that might not be a metric anyone cares about.  After all, if
Linux lets someone get their job done more efficiently than BSD, then
who cares how well the kernel is implemented on one versus the other?
Maybe that's the real, or at least the more important, issue.

Regardless, my point wasn't to specifically say that BSD is technically
superior to Linux (though I do think that it is), but rather to ask why
the decision wasn't made on technical merits.  I think it's safe to
assume that there *are* technically superior operating systems out
there.  An open source version of BeOS might have much more impact
than Linux, for instance; why wouldn't the UN push that?

One metric I've used to judge Unix systems is the sanity of their
`rc' file structure.  Systems with complex rc files that turn out
fragile messes tend to be fragile messes.  Most Linux distributions
have adopted System V run levels, and have further implemented
them with every ounce of complexity one could imagine.  The result
is a fragile mess.  Compare to, say, OpenBSD which sticks with good
ol' /etc/rc and one or two friends.

> I've been using Linux since the days of Redhat 4.0, circa 1997.  I find
> it to be stable, full-featured (yes, this is a bug and a feature) and
> to perform well.

I used Linux in the pre 1.0 days, around 1993 or 1994, and ditched it
for BSD and never looked back.  However, recently I was considering
whether it'd be useful to use it for some projects I wanted to play
with.  I'm tempted, but am not sure I can fully understand it enough
to configure it the way I'd like.  Thus, I'm really tempted to stick
with FreeBSD instead.

> The *only* issue I ever have with Linux is hardware support for either
> very new or very proprietary hardware (monitors, network and video cards),
> and that is usually solved with time.  The installation experience has
> only gotten *better* over the years.

I've had random crashes and found it difficult to configure it to do
things RedHat or Suse haven't anticipated.

> And the Linux dists come with *tons* of day-to-day useful software that
> I would have to go out and find and build were I running a commercial
> Unix system.

Oh, good heavens; at this stage in the game I'd never consider going
back to Commercial Unix unless I had some very good reason.

> For many people, the reality is that they can't run Plan 9 for day to day
> production use.  That means they have to run a *nix box.  So, given that
> that is the world we're playing in, I'd rather run Linux than Solaris,
> AIX, or HP-UX any day.  And since all I can afford are x86 boxes, that
> limits me to Solaris, Linux and *BSD.  So, why should I switch to a
> BSD system?

Well, I'd tell them to run a Macintosh instead.  But I agree with you
that I'd probably take Linux on x86 over commercial Unix on proprietary
hardware.  Regardless, I'm happy with my Macintosh, and I'm not looking
back at FreeBSD for a desktop system.  I just don't need or want it.
The fact that Linux ships with something like pine doesn't do much for
me (or that I can install it easily via the BSD ports collection).
Mail.app is nice for me to use, and I hope to never be stuck with a
goofy curses-based mail reader again....

> This IS NOT a flame.  I do not claim that Linux is perfect, the be-all,
> end all, etc, nor that all GNU software is wonderful etc etc.  I would
> merely like to understand what technical merits *BSD has that Linux
> doesn't.

Argh!  Burn the heretic!  (Just kidding!)

That's fine.  I hope I've given somewhat decent answers to reasonable
questions.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Adrian Tritschler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jack Johnson wrote:
| On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:21:39 +0200, lucio@proxima.alt.za
| <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
|
|>If y'all are curious, my answer is to add Remote Desktop to my
|>workstation and hide a Windows server in the computer room.
|
|
| My need for Citrix access finally drove me to swap out my home OS (yet
again).
|
| I think an RDP client for Plan 9 would be awesome.

http://www.rdesktop.org/

Get porting!  (I tried a while ago and didn't have enough
time/dedication/skill)

| -Jack

	Adrian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBN6V4IRiOsXzK05QRAqp7AKC1MJwJ/AGPm0pvgkGGXh3kPYj0VQCg4SWD
dkqOSG2QXn7PYRHk6SzsLJM=
=mVV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: ajft.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 134 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:Adrian Tritschler
n:Tritschler;Adrian
email;internet:ajft@ajft.org
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[geoff]

Back in the archives I explained why my preference is Plan 9 >> *BSD >
Linux >>> Windows.  With respect to BSDs and Linux, I find the BSD
kernels to be smaller and of higher quality.  An acquaintance observes
that Linux seems to attract application developers and the BSDs seem
to attrack kernel hackers, which may explain some of the difference.

Since the BSDs have increasingly good Linux emulation, it's hard to
see why one would run Linux (as opposed to swiping Linux applications
from a distribution) rather than a BSD.

Further, the BSDs maintain their systems as integrated systems, with
optional ports, as opposed to most Linux distributions (debian being
an exception but RedHat being guilty) that ship a collection of
modules with tight version-number dependencies: a kernel, user-mode
programs, some documentation, and their best wishes.  When you want to
add an application not in the distribution, you run into
version-number-dependency hell, since the world has already moved on
since the distribution was frozen, and the old versions of various
libraries you need have been expunged from the internet.  The BSD port
machinery at least automates the dependency resolution and the
maintainers seem to keep old versions around, so they can be found
when needed.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Boris Maryshev]

В сообщении от Пятница 03 Сентябрь 2004 00:40 Charles Forsyth написал(a):
> >>It is better than Plan 9 because I don't have to debug its kernel to
> >>do my day-to-day application programming; better than a recent Linux
>
> what were those kernel bugs?  i can't remember seeing (that many) patches
> on the list or in patches
 
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking
about.
  -- John von Neumann

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Charles Forsyth]

>>It is better than Plan 9 because I don't have to debug its kernel to
>>do my day-to-day application programming; better than a recent Linux

what were those kernel bugs?  i can't remember seeing (that many) patches
on the list or in patches

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[boyd, rounin]

> My affection for bsd over linux is two-fold.  Firstly, the
> kernel is a mess.  If you've ever been on the linux kernel
> mailing list for even a day you see that "development" is
> nothing more than a thousand cooks tweaking concoctions to
> throw into the stew.  You'll never see a 'design and
> implementation' book for linux because you can't exposit
> *how* the code works as there's almost no design.

there is this, but for drivers only, but it does give a
lot of insight in how VSF linux is:

    http://www.xml.com/ldd/chapter/book/index.html

3 zillion ways to do things i don't want to do.

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Boris Maryshev]

В сообщении от Четверг 02 Сентябрь 2004 21:54 dvd@davidashen.net написал(a):
> Linux is indistinguishable from Windows.
This thread is becoming indistinguishable from Windows. It is as transparent 
as windows are... At least it lets light through absolutely unchanged... Time 
to pull some curtains...

Boris

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[dvd]

For me, as for somebody who uses computers actively enough, a good
OS is one that helps solve my everyday tasks efficiently without falling
into the trap of following the fashion of useless stupid features forced
upon us by commercial hardware vendors so that we always by faster
computers.

Linux is indistinguishable from Windows.

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/comments/dbaigent/Weblog/the_linux_ui_that_has

It is just another bloated OS with unstable kernel and bad performance.

Plan 9 is nice, but has numerous bugs here and there which need constant
fixing to get it work for my needs (I was fixing a couple per week during
my last intercourse with this OS -- the first one was in mid-nineties; it
was unusable at that time). It is here to prove its own superiority, not to
serve as a tool. 

4.4BSD family is the least inconvenient among usable ones. They still don't
want to be just another VMS Personal Edition (while Linux is there already,
with a lonely but fading exception of Debian); and they provide environment
convenient enough to do everyday's work.

For the everyday work of mine, a BSD is the tool (including my Fujitsu T1120
subnotebook with FreeBSD on it), and the rest of the zoo 
(Debian, Win 2000, Plan 9,  Solaris) are test platforms.  

It is better than Plan 9 because I don't have to debug its kernel to
do my day-to-day application programming; better than a recent Linux
because I don't have to adjust my code to performance traps of the
process scheduler and filesystem idiocy; and it provides a good
alternative to many bloated GNU unixish tools. Win2000 would be nice
if it didn't inherit all the faults of VMS along with some of its advantages.

David

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Jack Johnson]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:21:39 +0200, lucio@proxima.alt.za
<lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> If y'all are curious, my answer is to add Remote Desktop to my
> workstation and hide a Windows server in the computer room.

My need for Citrix access finally drove me to swap out my home OS (yet again).

I think an RDP client for Plan 9 would be awesome.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Sam]

> And the Linux dists come with *tons* of day-to-day useful software that
> I would have to go out and find and build were I running a commercial
> Unix system.

FreeBSD has linux binary compatibility.  Most of that "useful"
software is in the ports collection.

My affection for bsd over linux is two-fold.  Firstly, the
kernel is a mess.  If you've ever been on the linux kernel
mailing list for even a day you see that "development" is
nothing more than a thousand cooks tweaking concoctions to
throw into the stew.  You'll never see a 'design and
implementation' book for linux because you can't exposit
*how* the code works as there's almost no design.

This is my experience with the 2.4 kernel.  FreeBSD isn't
much better in places, but there are sweet spots.  I haven't
even cracked OpenBSD yet, which according to Geoff is
the cleanest of the lot.

Second, linux developers really want an ignorant user base.
The entire userland approach is to obfuscate hypothetical
complexity behind a new program and a dizzying array of
switches.  The ports collection is a simple example:

% cd /usr/ports/astro/sunclock
% make install
... (downloads and builds program)
% (done)

Compare that to the rpm -Uv -waitdoihaveallthedependencies
or even gentoo's attempted photocopy of the ports system
"portage" where you do everything behind an emerge program.
They take the learning curve out of one place, put it
in another, and call it an improvement because they have
something to put on sourceforge.  blech.

Both in the kernel and userland linux is all about
"doing things to you" instead of "doing things for you."

And every time I find a "new" program that won't write its
output to stdout I puke all over my desk.  Right after
flushing my TLBs a hundred times for good measure.

Sam

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[lucio]

> I don't do animations, and I avoid some forms of computed graphics (piecharts)
> so I admit there are limitations. It was not perfect. But the glitches were
> within the limits defined of sharing .ppt between Office/97 and Office/XP.

Well, I'm just going to disagree.  The _average_ user of PowerPoint
does not care that I may not be able to use the features he so dearly
loves.  You may well be able to produce a PowerPoint presentation and
OpenOffice will approximate PowerPoint as closely as damn, but it will
never suffice unless Microsoft feature-freezes their products.

You want Windows (and millions more than the numbers in the Linux
world do), you can't fish for Linux instead.

If y'all are curious, my answer is to add Remote Desktop to my
workstation and hide a Windows server in the computer room.  For my
most important client I did so on VXL Percios using NetBSD and a very
recent version of XFree86, but my dream is to do it in Plan 9.  Once
I've penetrated the marketplace's skin with Plan 9 thin clients, I can
place 9P2000 services wherever suitable.  It may be just a foible of
mine, but I'm also hoping to have Plan 9 provide Remote Desktop as a
service so that existing thin clients can access Plan 9 services
transparently.  Of course, it's not a popular route, but I have a
small installation to prove feasibility.  This NetBSD installation may
be able to fend off an impending Microsoft migration for the
foreseeable future.

++L

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[lucio]

> 
> I can see that - I admit it wasn't clear in the original post.
> 
Right, I had to look for it.  But I make no claim to be unbiased, I've
invested ten years on Plan 9, I'd like them to bear fruit.

> Full-featured is in the eye of the beholder (like most things); as
> I expanded, I meant it as "lots of really useful programs already there
> out of the box."
> 
Yes, I intentionally distorted your statement, because I fear that
Linux will become another religion, Protestantism to Windows' Roman
Catholicism, if you feel like analogies.  And I'm serious here, as
soon as high priests and unproven assumptions take over, anything
seems capable of becoming an issue of faith.

> 
> I should have stated my definition.  I meant "stable" as in "never crashes
> unless the hardware is flakey."  I do see your point using your definition,
> and thus that's one point of the kind I was looking for in favor of *BSD.
> 
Same issue, there are other aspects one needs to consider, actual
resiliance against system failure may be important to some, less so to
others.  I know of organisations where somebody expressly visits the
computer room on weekends to reboot the Windows servers.  I think it's
a joke, they would be highly offended if I pointed that out to them.

> It wasn't meant negatively; it was a statement of fact that, like it
> or not, is a down point for Linux.  It does apply to all non-MS OS's,
> true.
> 
> I live in Israel.  I can't just mosey on down to my local Circuit City
> and pick out hardware that'll work with Linux.  I have a good relationship
> with a wonderful computer store, but they have hardware that they like.
> In the past, I've had monitor/video card/sound card issues, which were usually
> solved by the next linux release.  More recently I had a wireless networking
> card issue, where the box said "Linux" but it was a binary driver that
> would only work for RH 9, not Fedora.  (Solved via linuxant.com, but
> that's another story.)
> 
>From a South African perspective it is not very different.  And
perhaps it helps to look at this in more detail, as here is a very
critical issue.  It seems to me that the measurement is how much it
would cost to produce the missing software as and when the need
arises.  Given the Linux user/developers base, the cost is
considerably lower than for, say, NetBSD, with Plan 9 probably at the
very edge of that world.

It is possible that by making the framework in which device drivers
can be developed a lot simpler, as Plan 9 does, one can reduce the
cost somewhat, but that would still not make up for number of
developers, specially with idle hands.  Then, of course, there is the
pioneering, once Linux has been there, the *BSDs and Plan 9 will
certainly find it easier to follow.  (Hm, this need not apply only to
device drivers)

Of course, a change of culture that encourages hardware developers to
follow standards more closely and document their hardware with the
intent to facilitate driver development would make _all_ the
difference.  But that would require a chnage in the marketplace
vision.  The current interest in Linux may swing it, but it's more
likely to create merely another pole, as your experience illustrates.

> I was asking for me personally, as a committed techy/Unix type. I wasn't
> out to solve the world's problems. :-)
> 
Well, the context was that of the UN's investment in Linux, so you'll
have to forgive us, try to be more specific in future.

> Well said.
> 
Thank you.  It is not often that I feel I can drag my political views
here, they are not always well received and the replies are not often
of the type that encourages further discussion.  But I think that's a
part of the Plan 9 culture that one needs to accept.  It comes with
the territory, as a psychotherapist once suggested about a similar
situation.

++L

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[George Michaelson]

 
>Firstly, there is no such thing as "full featured".  For all of 10000
>packages (I'm guessing, but I think I'm pretty close) that NetBSD
>offers, I still can't conveniently exchange a PowerPoint presentation
>with a near infinite number of MS users unless I run some version of
>Windows.  The same is valid even more for Visio (have I got the right
>name?).  That is "full featured" even though Windows is lacking many
>of the options (ethereal, say) of the Unix world.


I have just presented 3 .ppt at a meeting here in Fiji using OpenOffice, and
I both produced and presented them from OpenOffice, and also re-edited them
on Windows XP, with Office/XP.

I don't do animations, and I avoid some forms of computed graphics (piecharts)
so I admit there are limitations. It was not perfect. But the glitches were
within the limits defined of sharing .ppt between Office/97 and Office/XP.

And, the rate of improvement is faster than it was: the successive versions
of OpenOffice I have used have been improvements, each time.

I still think the presentations done as PDF, or magicgarden generally have
more substance over style. Or (in Simon Peyton Jones' sense, marginally more,
but still less than an OHP and paper and pencil)

But to address your specific complaint: of not being able to meaningfully share
powerpoint with MS users, I think you've over-stated it, or stated from old
(1+ years) experience. For me, its not the problem it was then.

cheers
	-George

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Aharon Robbins]

Lucio,

> > Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
> > "superior"?  I would really like to know.  (Let's take it as granted
> > that OpenBSD is more "secure".  Fine.  What other criteria are there?)
>
> That's not how I interpret the snippet you replied to.  The "superior"
> platform would be Plan 9, the *BSD are mere alternatives to Linux.

I can see that - I admit it wasn't clear in the original post.

> Plan 9 is unquestionably superior, no quotes required.

Agreed.

> Firstly, there is no such thing as "full featured".  For all of 10000
> packages (I'm guessing, but I think I'm pretty close) that NetBSD
> offers, I still can't conveniently exchange a PowerPoint presentation
> with a near infinite number of MS users unless I run some version of
> Windows.  The same is valid even more for Visio (have I got the right
> name?).  That is "full featured" even though Windows is lacking many
> of the options (ethereal, say) of the Unix world.

Full-featured is in the eye of the beholder (like most things); as
I expanded, I meant it as "lots of really useful programs already there
out of the box."

> Stable?  Linux is considerably less stable than the *BSDs, as it is
> all too frequently updated.

I should have stated my definition.  I meant "stable" as in "never crashes
unless the hardware is flakey."  I do see your point using your definition,
and thus that's one point of the kind I was looking for in favor of *BSD.

> > The *only* issue I ever have with Linux is hardware support for either
> > very new or very proprietary hardware (monitors, network and video cards),
> > and that is usually solved with time.  The installation experience has
> > only gotten *better* over the years.
>
> This weakness is a poor criticism to level at any OS competing with
> Windows.

It wasn't meant negatively; it was a statement of fact that, like it
or not, is a down point for Linux.  It does apply to all non-MS OS's,
true.

I live in Israel.  I can't just mosey on down to my local Circuit City
and pick out hardware that'll work with Linux.  I have a good relationship
with a wonderful computer store, but they have hardware that they like.
In the past, I've had monitor/video card/sound card issues, which were usually
solved by the next linux release.  More recently I had a wireless networking
card issue, where the box said "Linux" but it was a binary driver that
would only work for RH 9, not Fedora.  (Solved via linuxant.com, but
that's another story.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that overall, my experience has been
positive, but not picture perfect.  That's OK.

> And, yes, I do appreciate that the
> Linux developers are leading in this race, but that's through sheer
> number, the *BSD device drivers are almost without fail better
> designed and implemented than the Linux ones they admittedly imitate.

Point two in favor of *BSD.

> So the question is not what ought to be recommended for the average user,

I was asking for me personally, as a committed techy/Unix type. I wasn't
out to solve the world's problems. :-)

> We also understand that without a much larger developers community,
> Plan 9 will stagnate, so we all pray that our favourite toy would
> become more widespread.  But in my opinion it's another chimera, we
> need to attract more sophisticated developers, keep the quality of the
> system up, be less concerned about quantity.  As long as Plan 9 can
> uniquely claim features such as a bullet-proof security, factotum,
> venti, uniformity of the namespace etc., it stands a head above the
> competitors.  It may not have a popular following, but then if one is
> to judge by popular following, what can compete with Windows?  And,
> for that matter, who would want to?

Well said.

Thanks,

Arnold

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[lucio]

> Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
> "superior"?  I would really like to know.  (Let's take it as granted
> that OpenBSD is more "secure".  Fine.  What other criteria are there?)

That's not how I interpret the snippet you replied to.  The "superior"
platform would be Plan 9, the *BSD are mere alternatives to Linux.  In
my opinion, the *BSDs are "superior" in that they are better
coordinated, specially on the technical side, but that can be a
subjective call.  Plan 9 is unquestionably superior, no quotes
required.

There are other issues you raise and they deserve a response, if only
to clarify some of the opinions that arise on this list.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "full featured".  For all of 10000
packages (I'm guessing, but I think I'm pretty close) that NetBSD
offers, I still can't conveniently exchange a PowerPoint presentation
with a near infinite number of MS users unless I run some version of
Windows.  The same is valid even more for Visio (have I got the right
name?).  That is "full featured" even though Windows is lacking many
of the options (ethereal, say) of the Unix world.

Stable?  Linux is considerably less stable than the *BSDs, as it is
all too frequently updated.  Once again, this is both an asset and a
liability, but you have to allow that it is closer in spirit to the
Windows world (publish frequently) than the Unix world (stabilise).
The question that it raises is whether the Windows philosophy is more
sound than the Unix one _from_the_point_of_view_of_the_luser_.  As far
as the suppliers go, obsolescence is an asset, period.

> The *only* issue I ever have with Linux is hardware support for either
> very new or very proprietary hardware (monitors, network and video cards),
> and that is usually solved with time.  The installation experience has
> only gotten *better* over the years.

This weakness is a poor criticism to level at any OS competing with
Windows.  Only the tenacity of the developer base allows the likes of
Linux and the *BSDs to replicate with great difficulty what the
hardware developers supply free of any effort to the Windows user.
Often, the hardware developers intentionally put stumbling blocks in
the path of driver developers, something extremely hard to reconcile
with a free marketplace.  I'm not sure you're doing your cause much
justice by raising this particular issue, other than gaining sympathy
for the Linux and *BSD developers.  And, yes, I do appreciate that the
Linux developers are leading in this race, but that's through sheer
number, the *BSD device drivers are almost without fail better
designed and implemented than the Linux ones they admittedly imitate.

> For many people, the reality is that they can't run Plan 9 for day to day
> production use.  That means they have to run a *nix box.  So, given that
> that is the world we're playing in, I'd rather run Linux than Solaris,
> AIX, or HP-UX any day.  And since all I can afford are x86 boxes, that
> limits me to Solaris, Linux and *BSD.  So, why should I switch to a
> BSD system?

Straw man.  To paraphrase: "For many people, the reality is that they
can't run Linux for day to day production use".  Nor BSD, nor any
other poor Windows imitation, they have to have the real thing.  So
the question is not what ought to be recommended for the average user,
but what would promote better conditions, for some value of
"conditions".  On this mailing list, we all acknowledge that Plan 9 is
superior in some fashion to other offering, we don't all agree as to
what this really means.

We also understand that without a much larger developers community,
Plan 9 will stagnate, so we all pray that our favourite toy would
become more widespread.  But in my opinion it's another chimera, we
need to attract more sophisticated developers, keep the quality of the
system up, be less concerned about quantity.  As long as Plan 9 can
uniquely claim features such as a bullet-proof security, factotum,
venti, uniformity of the namespace etc., it stands a head above the
competitors.  It may not have a popular following, but then if one is
to judge by popular following, what can compete with Windows?  And,
for that matter, who would want to?

++L

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Dick Davies]

* Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> [0940 10:40]:
> > Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> > to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> > why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> > one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?
 
> Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
> "superior"?  I would really like to know.

That's what we call 'an opinion'.
 
-- 
I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Aharon Robbins]

> Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?

Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
"superior"?  I would really like to know.  (Let's take it as granted
that OpenBSD is more "secure".  Fine.  What other criteria are there?)

I've been using Linux since the days of Redhat 4.0, circa 1997.  I find
it to be stable, full-featured (yes, this is a bug and a feature) and
to perform well.

The *only* issue I ever have with Linux is hardware support for either
very new or very proprietary hardware (monitors, network and video cards),
and that is usually solved with time.  The installation experience has
only gotten *better* over the years.

And the Linux dists come with *tons* of day-to-day useful software that
I would have to go out and find and build were I running a commercial
Unix system.

For many people, the reality is that they can't run Plan 9 for day to day
production use.  That means they have to run a *nix box.  So, given that
that is the world we're playing in, I'd rather run Linux than Solaris,
AIX, or HP-UX any day.  And since all I can afford are x86 boxes, that
limits me to Solaris, Linux and *BSD.  So, why should I switch to a
BSD system?

This IS NOT a flame.  I do not claim that Linux is perfect, the be-all,
end all, etc, nor that all GNU software is wonderful etc etc.  I would
merely like to understand what technical merits *BSD has that Linux
doesn't.

Thanks,

Arnold