9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 19:58 presotto
  2001-11-13 20:14 ` William Josephson
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-13 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

In the very recent past, I've installed Windows 98, Red Hat, and Plan 9.  I haven't
tried Debian yet so I can't say anything about it.

I must say, the hardest was Plan 9 although procedurally it was the easiest (less
questions, more ability to screw around if things did go wrong) although that
only helps if you have a basic familiarity with Plan 9.

The main problem was that the pre-patch system that's out there just doesn't go with
any hardware I could find at Avaya.  Everything I had was supported but only after
patches.  I ended up building a new kernel and 9load at bell labs, sticking them
onto the install floppy, along with an edited vgadb and going around the cycle
3 or 4 times till I got it right.  I couldn't build a kernel or 9load that would
work more generally because one with all the drivers is too big (to fit in 64k, to
fit compressed on a 1.4meg floppy, ...).  I know that precious few people could
have done the same.

The startup kernel for next release isn't going to fit on a floppy if we
don't change things.  We're (jmk and I mostly) considering suggestions
for what to do.
- One possibility is to build a kernel on the fly for people
downloading and have it contain the right drivers.  We get enough info from
the little question and answer session to set up plan9.ini.  That could keep
us going for a number of generations since it considerably reduces kernel size.
- Another is to have dynamicly linked drivers though that too would require
a prebuild since not all the drivers would fit on the floppy and drivers
with linkage info are larger.
- We could just give everyone login access to
a machine on the net and have them do their builds there and copy stuff
out as they see fit.
- We could also just start releasing CDROM's again where size wouldn't matter
as much.  We'ld need someone willing to make them.
- ???

Once I got a kernel/9load that worked, things went well till I wanted
to connect out.  Plan 9 is really crappy to customize once you've got a
stand-alone system up and running.  If noone else has done it, I'm about to start
on a GUI based configuration tool, sort of a collision between X86Config,
winipcnfig, and Wavelanconfig, ...  It needs to switch on something
(I'm assuming $menuitem) to pick a configuration; my laptop normally
wakes up tio find itself in any of 2 corporate networks and 3 ISP's.
DHCP/ppp/v6-resource-discovery doesn't provide enough info and often
has to be overriden so just depending on that isn't enough, you have
to be able to override/supplement.

Setting up plan 9 authentication is like giving birth through your eye ball.
That's all my fault.  Rsc, ehg, and I have been working on a new security architecture that
makes ssh, ssl, private passwords, etc. easier to keep track of and use,
sort of sshagent++, in addition to fixing the plan9 authentication.  I want
to get that out but it depends on getting the new system out which depends
on figuring out how to do a release better...

Finally, we just can't get releases put together fast enough.  We're now
a whole protocol behind so that we can't even send diffs out.  Part of that
is that this is a sideline for all of us.  We either need people as decicated
at putting releases together as linus and friends or we need a better way.  Perhaps
we should keep a machine on the internet with our more or less current
sources.  It wouldn't be as consistent as a release (man pages slightly out of
date, some things that might not build) but would be someplace to grab new
stuff from to try out.  I'ld prefer that to CVS since the bulk of the stuff
is still done at the labs without CVS.

All suggestions welcome.  Sorry for the long message.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20011112170104.719C619ABA@mail.cse.psu.edu>]
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14 18:02 forsyth
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-11-14 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 182 bytes --]

possibly, although we've found that people have been subjected to so much
<propaganda /> and soft SOAP that quite a few programmers
don't necessarily understand files any more.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3555 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 131 bytes --]

this may be the best summary of the use of
namespaces in Plan 9 (and, by association,
Inferno) i've yet heard. thanks, rob!



[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1743 bytes --]

From: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <20011114142914.DC9FB199F2@mail.cse.psu.edu>

> What advantages do you find  to this, over pure capability systems?

The most important aspect of Plan 9's design is that its unusual
properties all derive from the use of files, a concept every computer
user and programmer is comfortable with.  For example, make every
resource file-like, add a network file system, and suddenly every
resource can not only be accessed remotely, the users easily grasp how
to do so.  This really is the crux of the system: a combination that
combines ease of composability with familiarity.

-rob

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14 16:08 anothy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: anothy @ 2001-11-14 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 134 bytes --]

this may be the best summary of the use of
namespaces in Plan 9 (and, by association,
Inferno) i've yet heard. thanks, rob!
ア


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1743 bytes --]

From: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <20011114142914.DC9FB199F2@mail.cse.psu.edu>

> What advantages do you find  to this, over pure capability systems?

The most important aspect of Plan 9's design is that its unusual
properties all derive from the use of files, a concept every computer
user and programmer is comfortable with.  For example, make every
resource file-like, add a network file system, and suddenly every
resource can not only be accessed remotely, the users easily grasp how
to do so.  This really is the crux of the system: a combination that
combines ease of composability with familiarity.

-rob

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14 14:43 presotto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-14 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

I tried twice with XOS and Demos/MP.  XOS was a traditional capability system,
Demos a less traditional and more usable one.  XOS was mine, Demos/MP from
Los Alamos/Stanford.  Demos is described in an old SOSP (in the 70's),
XOS in a OSR in the 80's.  We had the usual problem with persistence;
garbage collecting the capabilities, revoking old capabilities, building
tools to walk the arbitrary graphs that resulted and make some sense of
them, ...  Even something like tar turned into a major pain in the backside
to build.  When you gave someone a capability, you had to do a transitive
closure of the access of that capability to figure out what you were giving
away or restrict the capability to be intransitive.  The result was
a lot more copying.

On the positive side, access control was nicer.  Unfortunately, that was the
only plus.

I keep believing that capabilities are a good idea but the concept requires
someone better than me to implement.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2626 bytes --]

From: Eyal Lotem <eyal@hyperroll.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:52:54 GMT
Message-ID: <3bf1a2de@news.bezeqint.net>

anothy@cosym.net wrote:

> no, not at all. i was talking strictly from the point of view of trying to
> explain the systems to someone. the per-process namespaces are where
> most people get stuck in their understanding.

Per-process namespaces are very much like per-process capability pools, but
allow processes to express requests they are not authorized to, as well as
requiring a clumsy namespace-access interface.  What advantages do you find
to this, over pure capability systems?  With capabilities, your requests
are in terms of the capabilities you have (aka: Directly in terms of your
authority), without having to 'name' them in a namespace.

In other words, if you go through to process-grained security, with the
more correct approach to security of visibility, and the terms of the
requests themselves, why not go all the way, with pure capability systems?
Getting rid of traditional file systems has other big pluses.

I personally think that if Plan 9 implemented a pure capability system, and
orthogonal persistency as early as it implemented its design, it could have
caught on, and be a lot more secure/efficient.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14 14:29 rob pike
  2001-11-15 10:41 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: rob pike @ 2001-11-14 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> What advantages do you find  to this, over pure capability systems?

The most important aspect of Plan 9's design is that its unusual
properties all derive from the use of files, a concept every computer
user and programmer is comfortable with.  For example, make every
resource file-like, add a network file system, and suddenly every
resource can not only be accessed remotely, the users easily grasp how
to do so.  This really is the crux of the system: a combination that
combines ease of composability with familiarity.

-rob



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14  9:29 Fco.J.Ballesteros
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros @ 2001-11-14  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

:  at putting releases together as linus and friends or we need a better way.  Perhaps
:  we should keep a machine on the internet with our more or less current
:  sources.

Getting access to current sources together with some mean (9fans?) to
listen for changes would allow some of us to help. At least you could
consider doing this as an experiment to see if it pays. I think that
would be great.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14  8:29 okamoto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: okamoto @ 2001-11-14  8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: nemo, 9fans

First of all, I'd like to say "Don't hurry too much to distribute new release".
We are using 3rd ed, and are mostly happy with it.  The most important thing to
us, Plan 9 users, is to enrich it by producing many of applications.   If so, stable
version is desired for such purpose (I don't say the new release will be unstable,
but users are more famillier with current release, and working now for it.  ^_^

If the next release will not fit into a floppy, I'd like to get working version from
net.  However, I suppose this is related to the matter what kind of people you
want to distribute it.   According to my understanding, Plan 9 is not suitable for
personal use, but rather to some organization such as Univ. or company.  I may
be wrong when we consider to run Plan 9 on a single machine is important.
If most users may belong to some organization, getting it from net is suitable, I think.

Kenji

PS. You will see many complaines about the difficulty of Plan 9 installation, and so on.
Don't be afraid it too much.   According to my observations in these more than five years,
users who are contributing Plan 9 community have never complained, but just worked
mainly by him/her-selves... :-)



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14  5:24 David Gordon Hogan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-11-14  5:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 116 bytes --]

He did say `compressed'.

I figure that with 650MB per CD, there ought to be enough
room for GCC 3.0 as well.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1757 bytes --]

From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:12:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <200111140512.AAA20038@augusta.math.psu.edu>

In article <20011114044205.62B6D199F2@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write:
>base package, maybe 150MB with tex, perl,
				     ^^^^
>cvs, and various other enormous programs.

Perl??  Surely you jest, sir.

	- Dan C.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-14  4:42 Russ Cox
  2001-11-14  5:12 ` Dan Cross
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: Russ Cox @ 2001-11-14  4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

I expect the compressed CD image would
be approximately as large as the compressed
distribution currently is -- 50-70MB for the
base package, maybe 150MB with tex, perl,
cvs, and various other enormous programs.

The format shouldn't change the size significantly.

Russ



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 23:46 forsyth
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-11-13 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

most equipment i could buy last year offered cd boot.  there's no need
to upgrade: booting a cd kernel from a floppy or hard disk to run from
the cd is nearly as good.  it was unfortunate i didn't include a 9pccd on
the vita cd last time, but i didn't think of it then.  in fact, it was only
the recent arrival of a floppy-less thinkpad that reminded me of it.
i'll probably put it up on the web site now i've got it.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1947 bytes --]

To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:27:53 -0000
Message-ID: <006f01c16c9a$d20e4b00$2248dec2@falken>

How much target h/w has a CD-drive and a BIOS
that supports CD-boot?
I know mine doesn't!

Looks like it's getting time to upgrade.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 22:18 forsyth
  2001-11-13 23:27 ` Chris Hollis-Locke
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-11-13 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 651 bytes --]

i'd do a bootable cd with a diskette used only if you can't
get your system to boot the CD directly.  i suspect the boot
diskette will then fit 1.44mb.  the main reason the vita cd isn't bootable
now is that i got it to boot but then discovered i'd need to mend
something to complete the process and there wasn't enough time (at the
time).  recently i've done some more to get a floppy-less thinkpad
going, and the next cd should be bootable.  this simplifies the
process because you've got access to the full version of all commands
on the full system (on the cd) rather than trying to cram things in
to a compressed file system on floppy.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1688 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:46:31 -0500
Message-ID: <200111132146.fADLkWd06580@new-york.lcs.mit.edu>

multiple floppies is a slippery slope.
1.44MB really should be enough to do an installation.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 21:50 presotto
  2001-11-14  0:40 ` Dan Cross
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-13 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

sorry I'm really an idiot, I could have sworn I'ld included a message there.
It was an answer to the suggestion of why not put the distribution on two floppies.

I really didn't even consider it because I hate floppies to begin with and
two scares me.  However, it may come to that.  Dhog is putting in dynamicly
linked drivers so I may go to building floppies with just the drivers needed
first.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2772 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 34 bytes --]

Didn't think of what?

	Sape


[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1226 bytes --]

From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:44:30 -0500
Message-ID: <20011113214431.5C552199E8@mail.cse.psu.edu>

Because I'm an idiot and didn't think of it?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 21:46 Russ Cox
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Russ Cox @ 2001-11-13 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

multiple floppies is a slippery slope.
1.44MB really should be enough to do an installation.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 21:46 Sape Mullender
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Sape Mullender @ 2001-11-13 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 34 bytes --]

Didn't think of what?

	Sape


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1226 bytes --]

From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:44:30 -0500
Message-ID: <20011113214431.5C552199E8@mail.cse.psu.edu>

Because I'm an idiot and didn't think of it?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 21:44 presotto
  2001-11-13 21:47 ` andrey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-13 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Because I'm an idiot and didn't think of it?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 20:18 David Gordon Hogan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-11-13 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

ravage@ssz.com writes:
> You just want to bitch.

Are you familiar with the concept of ``projection'' in psychology?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-13 20:17 David Gordon Hogan
  2001-11-13 22:38 ` Jim Choate
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-11-13 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> > The license thread is much much more tedious and longwinded
> > than the compiler thread.  And pointless; what does anyone hope
> > to accomplish?

> If the fault is in the license, try to get it changed to something more
> reasonable.

Did you even READ what I said?  I notice that you chopped off an
important part of my mail, which was:

<dhog> If you care that much, become a lawyer and get
<dhog> yourself employed by the Lucent legal department...

ie we (or rob at least) have tried all we could, it's out of our
hands.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 19:24 anothy
  2001-11-14  9:52 ` Eyal Lotem
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: anothy @ 2001-11-12 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

// Sticking point?  It's not like namespace groups really ``get in the way''.

no, not at all. i was talking strictly from the point of view of trying to
explain the systems to someone. the per-process namespaces are where
most people get stuck in their understanding. you're correct in noting
that not fully understanding that point doesn't prevent someone from
using the system.

// It's definately a feature that, on a CPU server, I can mount my own
// fileserver without giving everyone access to it.  And the way that
// /dev/cons works under rio is just what you want.

couldn't agree more. it makes nearly everything much nicer to do (the
only things it doesn't make nicer are the things it doesn't affect). i
_really_ like how doing a gateway for an internal-only network becomes
a simple import command
ア



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 19:18 David Gordon Hogan
  2001-11-13  0:19 ` Jim Choate
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-11-12 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> No, it shouldn't. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than a long winded
> discussion about 'compiler efficiency' which is a moot point for most
> users. Where's the 'compiler' list?...

The license thread is much much more tedious and longwinded
than the compiler thread.  And pointless; what does anyone hope
to accomplish?  If you care that much, become a lawyer and get
yourself employed by the Lucent legal department...



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 19:15 David Gordon Hogan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-11-12 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> but by far the majority of people i've explained it to get stuck,
> at least for a while, on private namespaces. the largest single sticking
> point in the system.

Sticking point?  It's not like namespace groups really ``get in the way''.
(occaisional inter-window mishaps notwithstanding).

It's definately a feature that, on a CPU server, I can mount my own
fileserver without giving everyone access to it.  And the way that
/dev/cons works under rio is just what you want.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 17:06 anothy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: anothy @ 2001-11-12 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

// It's hard to make people "get" private name spaces for some reason.
// At least it's hard for me to make people get it.

hey, don't feel bad. by now i've probably tried to explain Plan 9 and/or
Inferno directly to hundreds of people, and i find that to be the toughest
single concept, as well. virtual machines, Styx/9P, Limbo, device
control via read/write (no ioctl), and others people seem to get with no
problem, but by far the majority of people i've explained it to get stuck,
at least for a while, on private namespaces. the largest single sticking
point in the system.

well, that and how the arrow keys work.
ア



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 15:10 presotto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-12 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Actually, there were requests for it, go look at the archive.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 13:14 nigel
  2001-11-13  0:03 ` Jim Choate
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: nigel @ 2001-11-12 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>> Which none of us asked for, nor apparently find value in.

I'd prefer it if you didn't volunteer you own opinions as mine.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 12:17 geoff
  2001-11-13 10:25 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: geoff @ 2001-11-12 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Shoudln't this thread be sent to the plan 9 licensing list that
> Presotto so kindly created?

Yes it should.  It's been over two days since the mailing list
plan9-license-discussions@plan9.bell-labs.com was created and all
licensing discussion should now move there.  Otherwise we may ask
Scott to automatically divert all such messages there.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-12 11:12 Fco.J.Ballesteros
  2001-11-12 13:48 ` Jim Choate
  2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros @ 2001-11-12 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Shoudln't this thread be sent to the plan 9 licensing list
that Presotto so kindly created?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-09  9:38 okamoto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: okamoto @ 2001-11-09  9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>I'm starting to get tired of this thread.

I've been bored.  :-)

Kenji



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-09  9:21 Fco.J.Ballesteros
  2001-11-09 11:23 ` pac
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros @ 2001-11-09  9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

I'm starting to get tired of this thread.

1. Plan 9 is free software, you may like it or not, but it's free
software. The fact that It's not [L]GPL is not an issue.

2. The small user base is mainly due to the fact that it is really
hard to convince people to loose their applications in favor of
a new way of doing things; but this have been the same in
operating systems as long as I remember.

3. Nevertheless, the ideas are spreading. Looked at /proc on Linux
these years? At the attempts to use userfs on Linux? Remember that
some of the ideas are too radical for a unix system and may never
be imported to it.

4. Regarding your suggestions for improvements, I'm still waiting
for you to write something like:

	"Here is this piece of code of a plan 9 application;
	now, by changing plan 9 in this way, this application
	could be now as I show below (i.e. more simple,
	or more whatever)..."

Could we get back to tech topics and stop religious affairs now?
I'm sorry to be so rude, but I wouldn't like this list to look
like the linux ones.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-09  7:42 Russ Cox
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: Russ Cox @ 2001-11-09  7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

> > >>    modules...there are also several newer GUI's out there in the
> > >>    Open Source landscape that might bring a better interface to
> > >>    Plan 9.
> >
> > what are those?
>
> Source Forge and Freshmeat are good starting places.

You might as well say ``google is a good starting place.''
There's so much stuff on Source Forge at least that I certainly
can't separate wheat from chaff.  Google might actually be
a better starting place, since PageRank will probably give
me more interesting projects first.

What GUIs did you have in mind?

Russ


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2164 bytes --]

From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:51:31 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011108184616.364H-100000@einstein.ssz.com>


On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:

> >>    modules...there are also several newer GUI's out there in the
> >>    Open Source landscape that might bring a better interface to
> >>    Plan 9.
>
> what are those?

Source Forge and Freshmeat are good starting places.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-08 14:55 presotto
  2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  2001-11-09 10:17 ` John S. Dyson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 80+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2001-11-08 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

On Thu Nov  8 05:45:28 EST 2001, tb+usenet@becket.net wrote:
>
> There are some pretty big reasons that Plan 9's very good ideas are
> sitting in an eddy of the stream of OS design: because the political
> shenanigans of those who hold the keys have done their best to keep
> those ideas out of the mainstream.

This is hatefully unfair.  The shenanigans involve Rob spending months
fighting with lawyers to get a license as close to possible to the
model we originally gave them, i.e., ``do with it what you want, just don't
sue us if it breaks''.  It's amazing to me how that became what it
did.  However, its through no fault of Rob's, he got dragged kicking
and screaming all the way.

I just reread the GPL.  The main differences are indeed our 2 clauses

1) our license is one sided.  We demand that, on request, modifications
  are made available to Lucent if the modifications are otherwise
  distributed.  The GPL requires them to be made available to anyone.

2) our license limits lawsuits in too general a way.  You can't sue
  Lucent over intellectual property and keep the license.  There's
  nothing like this in the GPL. Instead it says that you can't
  include anything in the code that might have IP implications.
  Should you do so, you can't redistribute.

The first was intended to make sure Lucent got something back after
paying our salaries for years.  I beleive the more general form would
work for that too and the lawyers might be persuaded.

The second I doubt we can ever do anything about.  Lucent's lawyers don't
want Lucent being sued over stuff in the code.  Even though they didn't
make it more specific I expect that unless the IP involves the code that Lucent
released, it's not defensable.  I have to talk to an Avaya lawyer later
this week so maybe I can get an opinion.  Any of you lawyers out there?

I think lucent has been very upright about (1), i.e., if you give it
to them, it gets redistributed.  I have no idea about (2) since its
never come up when someone sued Lucent that I know of.

The question is, what does free mean?

It clearly doesn't mean the freedom of the contributor since any
licence fetters him in some way.  GPL doesn't let him distribute
changed binary without making the source available to everyone for
example.  It also seems to mean that you lose exclusive rights to
anything you embody in the code in the case of the GPL and that
you lose the ability to sue Lucent in the Plan 9 one.

In both cases the license is transitive.  Does that have to
do with free or freedom?

It does seem to mean that there is no monetary cost to obtaining,
using, and modifying the code other than the cost of copying it.  That
pertains to both licenses.

In these senses both licenses seem free to me, though the Plan 9
one seems lopsided in its fetters.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-08 13:46 forsyth
  2001-11-09  0:51 ` Jim Choate
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-11-08 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>>    modules...there are also several newer GUI's out there in the
>>    Open Source landscape that might bring a better interface to
>>    Plan 9.

what are those?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread
* [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
@ 2001-11-08 10:40 Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 80+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-08 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans


One reason that ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on is that Rob Pike
et. al. filed for patents on some of the ideas in Plan 9.  When he
came to MIT's AI Lab, and gave a nice presentation on Plan 9, I asked
him which of the ideas he had talked about we were allowed to use in
our own software projects.  He said "as far as I'm concerned, all of
them".  I asked if there were any patents that might matter as far as
AT&T was concerned, and he said there were some, but that he didn't
even understand the patent applications.

I know that his talk made an impression: the innovation of the ideas,
the impressiveness of the system built on them, and that not only
didn't we know if we would be sued for using similar ideas in our own
systems, but Rob wasn't going to tell us if that was possible or not.

And then, years later, after Plan 9 failed to capture a big audience,
it gets released for more public consumption, but for some
incomprehensible reason, is still not free software.

There are some pretty big reasons that Plan 9's very good ideas are
sitting in an eddy of the stream of OS design: because the political
shenanigans of those who hold the keys have done their best to keep
those ideas out of the mainstream.

Thomas


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 80+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2001-12-29  4:03 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-11-13 19:58 [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on presotto
2001-11-13 20:14 ` William Josephson
2001-11-13 21:39 ` Mike Haertel
2001-11-13 22:42   ` [9fans] Installation mechanism Jim Choate
2001-11-13 22:54     ` Mike Fletcher
2001-11-13 22:54 ` [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on George Michaelson
2001-11-14  0:19   ` William Josephson
2001-11-13 23:19 ` [9fans] Startup kernel thoughts Chris Hollis-Locke
     [not found] <20011112170104.719C619ABA@mail.cse.psu.edu>
2001-12-29  4:03 ` [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Andrew Simmons
2001-11-13 11:13   ` Boyd Roberts
2001-11-13 15:53     ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-11-13 17:21     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-11-14 18:02 forsyth
2001-11-14 16:08 anothy
2001-11-14 14:43 presotto
2001-11-14 14:29 rob pike
2001-11-15 10:41 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-14  9:29 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-14  8:29 okamoto
2001-11-14  5:24 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-14  4:42 Russ Cox
2001-11-14  5:12 ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13 23:46 forsyth
2001-11-13 22:18 forsyth
2001-11-13 23:27 ` Chris Hollis-Locke
2001-11-14  4:38   ` Lucio De Re
2001-11-13 21:50 presotto
2001-11-14  0:40 ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13 21:46 Russ Cox
2001-11-13 21:46 Sape Mullender
2001-11-13 21:44 presotto
2001-11-13 21:47 ` andrey
2001-11-13 20:18 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13 20:17 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13 22:38 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-12 19:24 anothy
2001-11-14  9:52 ` Eyal Lotem
2001-11-12 19:18 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13  0:19 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13  2:02   ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13  2:16     ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13  2:27       ` William Josephson
2001-11-13 10:34     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 19:15 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-12 17:06 anothy
2001-11-12 15:10 presotto
2001-11-12 13:14 nigel
2001-11-13  0:03 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13 18:04   ` Skip Tavakkolian
2001-11-14  9:52     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 12:17 geoff
2001-11-13 10:25 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 11:12 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-12 13:48 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-13 16:21   ` Scott Schwartz
2001-11-09  9:38 okamoto
2001-11-09  9:21 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-09 11:23 ` pac
2001-11-12 10:32 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 10:45 ` David Rubin
2001-11-12 15:34   ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-11-09  7:42 Russ Cox
2001-11-08 14:55 presotto
2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-09 10:17 ` John S. Dyson
2001-11-08 13:46 forsyth
2001-11-09  0:51 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-08 10:40 Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-09 10:17   ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-09 14:34     ` T. Kurt Bond
2001-11-10  2:00       ` Jim Choate
2001-11-12 10:33         ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 11:29           ` Ralph Corderoy
2001-11-13 10:27             ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 10:42         ` T. Kurt Bond
2001-11-12 20:24           ` Steve Kilbane
2001-11-13  0:03             ` Jim Choate
2001-11-12 10:33       ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).