[9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]

This is interesting perhaps:

http://www.wmii.de/

I wonder how far of this 9base stuff they are using is from the Plan 9
userspace stuff Russ maintains.

The last official release was called "Boyd".

Looks like linux gets a leg up on this window manager with v9fs too.

"9p2k compliance of all wmii fileservers, which will provide the ability to
mount into the filesystem beginning with Linux kernel 2.6.14 natively
(thankfully it'll contain 9p2k support)"

Seems really excellent. Too bad it still needs X11 :)

Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 668 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[Russ Cox]

>  Seems really excellent.  Too bad it still needs X11 :)

Too bad his acme is ugly.  (http://wmii.de/shots/20050818.png)

Russ

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[erik quanstrom]

you weren't a kiddin'.

Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> writes

| 
| >  Seems really excellent.  Too bad it still needs X11 :)
| 
| Too bad his acme is ugly.  (http://wmii.de/shots/20050818.png)
| 
| Russ
; sendmail 9fans@cse.psu.edu rsc@swtch.com

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[lucio]

> I wonder how far of this 9base stuff they are using is from the Plan 9
> userspace stuff Russ maintains.

If so, they left out his name from the contributor's list.  Uriel,
what gives?

I'm going to give it a try under NetBSD, just to see how portable it is.

++L

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[erik quanstrom]

they only lists 19 applications.  they seem to be playing fast-and-loose
with the copyright though. they only list the x/mit license and credit
only themselves.

their man pages seem to indicate that this is just a window manager.

lucio@proxima.alt.za writes

| 
| > I wonder how far of this 9base stuff they are using is from the Plan 9
| > userspace stuff Russ maintains.
| 
| If so, they left out his name from the contributor's list.  Uriel,
| what gives?
| 
| I'm going to give it a try under NetBSD, just to see how portable it is.

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[Anselm R. Garbe]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:35:21PM -0600, erik quanstrom wrote:
> they only lists 19 applications.  they seem to be playing fast-and-loose
> with the copyright though. they only list the x/mit license and credit
> only themselves.

That is not true.

I'm the maintainer of wmii, which does not contain any portions
of plan9 code. It is developed from scratch und completely
licensed under the terms of MIT license.  Beginning with next
version (wmii-3), which is planned for Xmas, all wmii-related
servers (the core window manager, the shortcut manager, a
keyboard driven menu and a pseudo-fs-router) will communicate
via 9P. I implemented a unix library (libixp2) which is designed
to allow very basic 9P client/server implementations, following
the specs from the 9P man pages.

In contrast to wmii I also packaged 9base, which I already
announced on this list long ago, based on plan9port, the mk unix
port - all by Russ and my Makefiles for wmii (because 9base does
not depend on mk).  We use 9base to configure wmii with rc
scripts and included all useful userland tools we need for
writing rc scripts.  In contrast to plan9port we also link
statically against libc. The license details of 9base are
included in the tarball, I'll add them also to the 9base wiki
page to clarify those things, because it seems to confuse people
as this discussion shows.

> their man pages seem to indicate that this is just a window manager.

That is true. The next version will be simply a dynamic window
manager with some tools around and the 9P interface.

Regards,
-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[Russ Cox]

> In contrast to plan9port we also link
> statically against libc.

Is there any benefit to doing this,
given that the rest of the system does not?

Russ

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[Anselm R. Garbe]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:35:17AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> > In contrast to plan9port we also link
> > statically against libc.
> 
> Is there any benefit to doing this,
> given that the rest of the system does not?

Only exec() speedups due to missing dynamic linking stuff,
because we execute approx. 400 processes (statically linked,
which do call wmir, which is something similiar to the 9p(1)
client, writing setup stuff to the file servers) while
initialization through the wmirc script, but in general not
noticable on modern hardware (though measurable, I determined in
a dynamic rc vs static rc comparision about 500% speedup in
exec() throughput, only due to the fact of static linking).  In
Linux dynamic loading seems pretty fast compared to OpenBSD,
what I'm using frequently and where you even notice the
difference between static and dynamic binary execution if you
run wmii with 9base (static) OR with plan9port (dynamic).

Regards,
-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[Russ Cox]

This made me realize that while I got permission to do so a
few years ago, I never did update the u9fs license.  U9fs and
its pieces are made available under the usual MIT-like license.
That includes fcall.h, convS2M, etc., so (addressing everyone,
not just Anselm) please feel free to use these rather than
reinvent the wheel for your own 9P projects.  There is a new
/sys/src/cmd/unix/u9fs/LICENSE on sources covering that
directory.

Russ

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[erik quanstrom]

i guess i'm guilty of not being clear too --- i was referring to the 
copyright on 9base, not wmii, which appeared to me to be mit/x
on the web site.

thanks for clarifying things.

- erik

"Anselm R. Garbe" <garbeam@gmail.com> writes

| 
| On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:35:21PM -0600, erik quanstrom wrote:
| > they only lists 19 applications.  they seem to be playing fast-and-loose
| > with the copyright though. they only list the x/mit license and credit
| > only themselves.
| 
| That is not true.
| 
| I'm the maintainer of wmii, which does not contain any portions
| of plan9 code. It is developed from scratch und completely
| licensed under the terms of MIT license.  Beginning with next
| version (wmii-3), which is planned for Xmas, all wmii-related
| servers (the core window manager, the shortcut manager, a
| keyboard driven menu and a pseudo-fs-router) will communicate
| via 9P. I implemented a unix library (libixp2) which is designed
| to allow very basic 9P client/server implementations, following
| the specs from the 9P man pages.
| 
| In contrast to wmii I also packaged 9base, which I already
| announced on this list long ago, based on plan9port, the mk unix
| port - all by Russ and my Makefiles for wmii (because 9base does
| not depend on mk).  We use 9base to configure wmii with rc
| scripts and included all useful userland tools we need for
| writing rc scripts.  In contrast to plan9port we also link
| statically against libc. The license details of 9base are
| included in the tarball, I'll add them also to the 9base wiki
| page to clarify those things, because it seems to confuse people
| as this discussion shows.
| 
| > their man pages seem to indicate that this is just a window manager.
| 
| That is true. The next version will be simply a dynamic window
| manager with some tools around and the 9P interface.
| 
| Regards,
| -- 
|  Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361

Re: [9fans] wmii? 9p2000 compliant window manager.

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 335 bytes --]

On 11/19/05, lucio@proxima.alt.za <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how far of this 9base stuff they are using is from the Plan 9
> > userspace stuff Russ maintains.
>
> If so, they left out his name from the contributor's list. Uriel,
> what gives?



They have a special thanks to him somewhere in a README :).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 703 bytes --]