Re: [9fans] more little hardware

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jonas Amoson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

As I get it, it does not feauture a USB host controller, but acts
like an USB device that you can connect to your PC. Maybe it
will work anyhow...

>>> I was wondering how you'd network one of those things:
>>>
>>> http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_in_Nanonote
>
> I thought that was terribly cute. The other option is talking
> PPP over the USB. You'd be tethered, but you could at least
> talk.




<P><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="font-size:13.5px">_______________________________________________________________<BR><font style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #00f"><strong>K�p bl�ckpatron, toner eller fotopapper f�r 1 kr hos Inkclub.</strong> Best�ll f�re kl. 19 f�r <br>leverans till din hemadress redan n�sta vardag.  Det �r bekv�mt, snabbt och enkelt.  Best�ll p�</font>\v<br>
<a style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #00f" href="http://secure-dk.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/b?ci=aller-kampanj-se&cg=spray&tu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inkclub.com%2Fspraylinkfeb10" target="_blank">www.inkclub.com.</a>\v</font>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1307 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[blstuart]

> As I get it, it does not feauture a USB host controller, but acts
> like an USB device that you can connect to your PC. Maybe it
> will work anyhow...
>
>>>> I was wondering how you'd network one of those things:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_in_Nanonote
>>
>> I thought that was terribly cute. The other option is talking
>> PPP over the USB. You'd be tethered, but you could at least
>> talk.

I think it will.  I've done PPP over USB before, and I'm pretty
sure it was a case of the PC acting as host and the other end
as a device.  But it's been about a year, and I'm having trouble
recalling the details.

But as I'm thinking right now, that would just be an interim
step before hopefully moving to the 802.11 device in the
microSD card.

BLS

[9fans] more little hardware

[maht]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[blstuart]

> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/

Okay, Maht.  You just cost me $125 :)  I just couldn't resist.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether this will be another
project that gets pushed onto the stack or we will see something
come of it.  What I've got in mind at the moment is a native
Inferno port.  We'll see what happens.

BLS

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[John Floren]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM,  <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/
>
> Okay, Maht.  You just cost me $125 :)  I just couldn't resist.
> Of course, it remains to be seen whether this will be another
> project that gets pushed onto the stack or we will see something
> come of it.  What I've got in mind at the moment is a native
> Inferno port.  We'll see what happens.
>
> BLS
>

Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
have just what we needed for the 9phone.

At 32 MB of RAM, it's basically the very lower limit of what we could
use for a terminal. Does it have a touchscreen? I didn't see that
listed.


John
-- 
"Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing" -- Rob Pike

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[blstuart]

> Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
> have just what we needed for the 9phone.

That would be cool.  Unfortunately, the cell phone people seem a lot
less friendly about releasing the information necessary to program
their chips.

> At 32 MB of RAM, it's basically the very lower limit of what we could
> use for a terminal. Does it have a touchscreen? I didn't see that
> listed.

As near as I can tell, it doesn't.  I think the large square key is basically
a mouse.  As to buttons, I don't know yet.  In the worst case, I can
probably usurp the function keys as mouse buttons.

BLS

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Tim Newsham]

> Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
> have just what we needed for the 9phone.

9phone?

> John

Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[John Floren]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote:
>> Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
>> have just what we needed for the 9phone.
>
> 9phone?
>

Just an idea to run Plan 9 on phone hardware, "son of bitsy". Looks
like there's a lot of very cheap Android devices coming from China in
the near future, so we may be in luck there.

John
--
"Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing" -- Rob Pike

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Tim Newsham]

>> 9phone?
>
> Just an idea to run Plan 9 on phone hardware, "son of bitsy". Looks
> like there's a lot of very cheap Android devices coming from China in
> the near future, so we may be in luck there.

Hmm..  There's the OK-labs android stuff which virtualizes
android on top of L4.  If only p9 was running on top of L4 :)

> John

Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote:

> Hmm..  There's the OK-labs android stuff which virtualizes
> android on top of L4.  If only p9 was running on top of L4 :)


Get cracking Tim! how hard can it be? :-)

Actually I still think igep + sparkfun phone module might be a path.

ron

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:50 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net> wrote:
>
> > Hmm..  There's the OK-labs android stuff which virtualizes
> > android on top of L4.  If only p9 was running on top of L4 :)
>
>
> Get cracking Tim! how hard can it be? :-)
>
> Actually I still think igep + sparkfun phone module might be a path.
>
> ron
>
>
I keep wanting to look into PL4n 9, but this pesky job, wife and child thing
keeps getting in the way :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 920 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Tim Newsham]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 374 bytes --]

>> android on top of L4.  If only p9 was running on top of L4 :)
>
> Get cracking Tim! how hard can it be? :-)

Honestly, I think it would loads of fun to do, but I probably wouldn't use 
it myself once done, I don't have the free time to do it, and I don't
know of a way to do it for work...

> ron

Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Steve Simon]

> Honestly, I think it would loads of fun to do, but I probably wouldn't use
> it myself once done, I don't have the free time to do it, and I don't
> know of a way to do it for work...

The story of my (plan9) life...

I should add that there is also lots of stuff I _would_ use
that I don't have time to write.

my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"

-Steve

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Gabriel Díaz]

hello

"How do I get my employer to need plan9?"

Given the experiences posted by some of the plan9 inventors in other thread, this seems to be an almost impossible task, unless you make your own business or change you're employer for someone which already uses plan9. I guess.

It is a bit discouraging for a fan who has the hope to get his employer need plan9 i think. I already gave up on this.

slds.

gabi



----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 9:04:56 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] more little hardware

> Honestly, I think it would loads of fun to do, but I probably wouldn't use 
> it myself once done, I don't have the free time to do it, and I don't
> know of a way to do it for work...

The story of my (plan9) life...

I should add that there is also lots of stuff I _would_ use
that I don't have time to write.

my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"

-Steve

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1669 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Gabriel Díaz <gdiaz@rejaa.com> wrote:

> hello
>
> "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
>
> Given the experiences posted by some of the plan9 inventors in other
> thread, this seems to be an almost impossible task, unless you make your own
> business or change you're employer for someone which already uses plan9. I
> guess.
>
> It is a bit discouraging for a fan who has the hope to get his employer
> need plan9 i think. I already gave up on this.
>

I think size of company matters too.  We're a really small group where I
work, and getting things done correctly is actually valued a bit more than
the means by which it gets done.

It's that mentality that let me throw off the shackles of Java for Erlang
and Haskell for a lot of the code I'm responsible for.  I might even try to
push my luck soon and get permission to rewrite a small but really important
chunk of code in Go if i can prove to myself, and then to others, that it's
a good idea :-)

Dave


>
> slds.
>
> gabi
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>
> To: 9fans@9fans.net
> Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 9:04:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [9fans] more little hardware
>
> > Honestly, I think it would loads of fun to do, but I probably wouldn't
> use
> > it myself once done, I don't have the free time to do it, and I don't
> > know of a way to do it for work...
>
> The story of my (plan9) life...
>
> I should add that there is also lots of stuff I _would_ use
> that I don't have time to write.
>
> my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
>
> -Steve
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2364 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jorden Mauro]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:36 AM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Gabriel Díaz <gdiaz@rejaa.com> wrote:
>>
>> hello
>>
>> "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
>>
>> Given the experiences posted by some of the plan9 inventors in other
>> thread, this seems to be an almost impossible task, unless you make your own
>> business or change you're employer for someone which already uses plan9. I
>> guess.
>>
>> It is a bit discouraging for a fan who has the hope to get his employer
>> need plan9 i think. I already gave up on this.
>
> I think size of company matters too.  We're a really small group where I
> work, and getting things done correctly is actually valued a bit more than
> the means by which it gets done.
> It's that mentality that let me throw off the shackles of Java for Erlang
> and Haskell for a lot of the code I'm responsible for.

You are a lucky man.

> I might even try to
> push my luck soon and get permission to rewrite a small but really important
> chunk of code in Go if i can prove to myself, and then to others, that it's
> a good idea :-)
> Dave
>
>>
>> slds.
>>
>> gabi
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>
>> To: 9fans@9fans.net
>> Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 9:04:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: [9fans] more little hardware
>>
>> > Honestly, I think it would loads of fun to do, but I probably wouldn't
>> > use
>> > it myself once done, I don't have the free time to do it, and I don't
>> > know of a way to do it for work...
>>
>> The story of my (plan9) life...
>>
>> I should add that there is also lots of stuff I _would_ use
>> that I don't have time to write.
>>
>> my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jack Johnson]

Thanks to Google's targeted ads:

http://www.eglobalwireless.com/p-4333-new-7-mini-netbook-laptop-notebook-wifi-windows-2gb-hd.aspx

Also might make a good Inferno device if WinCE isn't too firmly ensconced.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Georg Lehner]

Jack Johnson wrote:
> Thanks to Google's targeted ads:
>
> http://www.eglobalwireless.com/p-4333-new-7-mini-netbook-laptop-notebook-wifi-windows-2gb-hd.aspx
>
> Also might make a good Inferno device if WinCE isn't too firmly ensconced.
>
> -Jack
>
>
Anybody interested in porting Inferno emu to WinCE?

It should not be hard to do, and the tools are available for free. I
could contribute
some knowledge and ressources, though not much time.

WinCE allows to replace the Windows Shell with something else via a simple
registry setting ( targetting e.g. Mobile Phones with WinCE already
installed).
A lot of commercially evaluation boards provide WinCE board support packages
which would allow one to create a new OS-Image with everything but the WinCE
kernel stripped out and include inferno emu as "GUI-shell".

Porting Plan9 from user space seems somewhat more involved to me (threads
and graphics) while an Inferno emu for (Desktop) Windows already exists
(and should require little porting effort to WinCE APIs).

Regards,

    Jorge-Le�n

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[erik quanstrom]

> 
> my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
> 

by careful choise of employer?  ☺

- erik

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Patrick Kelly]

On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 08:46 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >
> > my big question is "How do I get my employer to need plan9?"
> >
>
> by careful choise of employer?  ☺

Or become the employer

Seriously though, ask around, see if theres a use for any old machines
at your workplace. Too old to be running Windows or UNIX, but still fine
for a non-hack-job system like Plan 9.

Most business men are always looking for ways to save money.

>
> - erik
>

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Patrick Kelly]

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:44 -0500, John Floren wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM,  <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/
> >
> > Okay, Maht.  You just cost me $125 :)  I just couldn't resist.
> > Of course, it remains to be seen whether this will be another
> > project that gets pushed onto the stack or we will see something
> > come of it.  What I've got in mind at the moment is a native
> > Inferno port.  We'll see what happens.
> >
> > BLS
> >
>
> Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
> have just what we needed for the 9phone.

Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?

>
> At 32 MB of RAM, it's basically the very lower limit of what we could
> use for a terminal. Does it have a touchscreen? I didn't see that
> listed.
>
>
> John

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?

vapor. That thing was pure vapor from start to end.

ron

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Patrick Kelly]

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:38 -0800, ron minnich wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?
>
> vapor. That thing was pure vapor from start to end.

Figures

sickening how many potentially nice, GPL'd, things turn into that.

>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Charles Forsyth]

>vapor. That thing was pure vapor from start to end.

i think that's a little unfair. they did produce something
but underestimated the time and treasure required to make
a prototype even moderately usable. had it been only the
lack of software, they could have fixed it, but they were
stuck too early with hardware mistakes. that doesn't fully explain
the software decisions, but they did produce a very strange interface.

as to hardware/software: i'm often struck at how badly hardware
designers still misunderstand how the software will want to see things,
and not just on things like the openmoko.

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Stuart Morrow]

On 3/17/10, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> as to hardware/software: i'm often struck at how badly hardware
> designers still misunderstand how the software will want to see things,
> and not just on things like the openmoko.

I'm often struck at how badly software designers still misunderstand how the
user will want to see things.

</cheek>

(note: not aimed at Plan 9, which may well be my least hated GUI and my
least hated command line)

Anyway, re: your hardware comment: even in virtualisation, where the hardware
is actually software, they still do it wrong.  Three or four years ago there was
a thread on kvm-devel where Ron and Eric were advocating that a PV device
should be this 9P-like thing, it never turned out that way though.

-stu

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[hugh]

On Mar 16, 7:40 pm, rminn...@gmail.com (ron minnich) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?
>
> vapor. That thing was pure vapor from start to end.


No, it was not vapour.  You can buy it here, for example (a place that
also sells the Ben Nanonote):
<http://hackable-devices.com/products/product/freerunner-gta02/>

There are definite cracks in the project.  As far as I can tell it
isn't making forward progress.  For example, the hardware only
supports 3 bands, not the 4 bands they intended.  The software has had
shaky development (I don't know its current status).  But the software
doesn't matter if you plan on putting your own on.

The hardware is almost open, last I heard.  They got snookered by a
component provider that promised open but didn't actually deliver.

Android and OpenMoko are phones are both open for the customer.  The
crucial difference is that the customer of Android is not the end-user
but the customer for the OpenMoko is.

Before buying one, have a look at the community to see if it is alive
enough.

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[ron minnich]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:35 AM, hugh@mimosa.com <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 7:40 pm, rminn...@gmail.com (ron minnich) wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?
>>
>> vapor. That thing was pure vapor from start to end.
>
>
> No, it was not vapour.  You can buy it here, for example (a place that
> also sells the Ben Nanonote):
> <http://hackable-devices.com/products/product/freerunner-gta02/>

Yep, I guess it's buyable now, where for the 3 or so years I kept
trying to buy it it was always "oh, hang on, we're not quite ready
yet".

I'm sticking with my characterization.

>
> There are definite cracks in the project.  As far as I can tell it
> isn't making forward progress.  For example, the hardware only
> supports 3 bands, not the 4 bands they intended.  The software has had
> shaky development (I don't know its current status).  But the software
> doesn't matter if you plan on putting your own on.
>
> The hardware is almost open, last I heard.  They got snookered by a
> component provider that promised open but didn't actually deliver.

Doesn't sound that useful to me.

ron

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[David Arnold]

On 16/03/2010, at 5:02 PM, Patrick Kelly wrote:

> Any thought as to using the OpenMoko as a phone platform?

Unfortunately, I don't think either the Neo1973 or the FreeRunner are useful as a daily-use phone due to various hardware bugs or limitations.




d

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[maht]

> Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
> have just what we needed for the 9phone.
>
>
One of these days I'll have something like this on my desk

http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9311

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Stuart Morrow]

On 3/16/10, John Floren <slawmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Shame it doesn't have a cell phone radio built in, or Ron and I might
> have just what we needed for the 9phone.

I'm been using the same phone since 2003 - the only phone I've ever owned -
so I obviously don't care (or know) much about "smart phones".  I don't even
send texts, only regular voice calls.  I do receive texts.

However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful enough that
carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on battery might
actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do with Plan 9 -
setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.

I don't know if other phones provide that feature but I've never heard
it mentioned.

Bonus feature, just because it's so trivial to do on a Plan 9 phone:
cat /dev/eia0 | awk -v 'RS=whateverNMEAuses' '
($longfield "," $latfield == "xxx,yyy"){print "off"}' > /dev/ringctl
Or more realistically, because you don't walk over the exact same spot
all the time:
'nearenough($longfield "," $latfield, "xxx,yyy"){print "toggle"}'

stu

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jack Johnson]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Stuart Morrow
<morrow.stuart@googlemail.com> wrote:
> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful enough that
> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on battery might
> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do with Plan 9 -
> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.

I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the ambient
noise, which also seems fairly trivial.

What did you folks with bitsies and iPAQs find useful? Any of you
still packing one?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[John Floren]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Stuart Morrow
> <morrow.stuart@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful enough that
>> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on battery might
>> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do with Plan 9 -
>> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.
>
> I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the ambient
> noise, which also seems fairly trivial.
>
> What did you folks with bitsies and iPAQs find useful? Any of you
> still packing one?
>
> -Jack

I have fiddled with an iPAQ/bitsy on and off over the last few years.
What's really nice about it is that you get access to a "real
computer"; I booted wirelessly off my CPU server, which meant I had
access to all my files and music, which was nice because the bitsy's
sound hardware is supported. As long as you have a wireless
connection, it's the best way to use a PDA. If wireless goes away...
life sucks.

It was nice--the reason I don't use it is because the adapter which
gives PCMCIA capability makes the device about 3 inches thick, and the
battery is pretty old/weak.

By my assessment, the bitsy was just a little too primitive for Plan
9. You need a bulky adapter to get wireless (PCMCIA sleeve + orinoco,
basically), the boot process is a bit weird, there's not really much
local storage, and of course it's a PDA, not a phone, so you still
have to carry around a cell phone too.

If we could either port to a modern ARM-based phone or work out some
sort of relatively space-efficient combination of the Beagleboard +
touchscreen + cell radio + battery, I think life would be nice. The
OpenMoko platform is quite cheap, but I don't know that there's much
future there; I can't find the reference now, but I'm pretty sure I
read somewhere on the site that they do not plan to design any more
hardware.

John
--
"Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing" -- Rob Pike

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Axel Belinfante]

On Mar 17, 2010, at 20:13 , John Floren wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Stuart Morrow
>> <morrow.stuart@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful
>>> enough that
>>> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on
>>> battery might
>>> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do
>>> with Plan 9 -
>>> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.
>>
>> I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the ambient
>> noise, which also seems fairly trivial.
>>
>> What did you folks with bitsies and iPAQs find useful? Any of you
>> still packing one?
>>
>> -Jack
>
> I have fiddled with an iPAQ/bitsy on and off over the last few years.
> What's really nice about it is that you get access to a "real
> computer"; I booted wirelessly off my CPU server, which meant I had
> access to all my files and music, which was nice because the bitsy's
> sound hardware is supported. As long as you have a wireless
> connection, it's the best way to use a PDA.

can agree to that.
used it to play music too, a bit.

there was a time when I occasionally used it as small terminal,
at the university, at home, or even elsewhere,
to connect via vnc to a session running on the desktop at the office.
with a tiny font, an xterm would be big enough to read email via mh.

I also used it on occasion when diagnosing plan 9 cpu server in
the server room - it was a nice small machine to bring there.

bulky it was - I have the bigger sleeve that allows
use of two thin pcmcia cards (e.g. wifi and hard disk).

I don't know exactly why I stopped using it...
somehow the use I had for it disappeared, I guess.

Axel.

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Axel Belinfante]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2317 bytes --]

> On Mar 17, 2010, at 20:13 , John Floren wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Stuart Morrow
>>> <morrow.stuart@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful
>>>> enough that
>>>> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on
>>>> battery might
>>>> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do
>>>> with Plan 9 -
>>>> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.
>>>
>>> I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the
>>> ambient
>>> noise, which also seems fairly trivial.
>>>
>>> What did you folks with bitsies and iPAQs find useful? Any of you
>>> still packing one?
>>>
>>> -Jack
>>
>> I have fiddled with an iPAQ/bitsy on and off over the last few years.
>> What's really nice about it is that you get access to a "real
>> computer"; I booted wirelessly off my CPU server, which meant I had
>> access to all my files and music, which was nice because the bitsy's
>> sound hardware is supported. As long as you have a wireless
>> connection, it's the best way to use a PDA.
>

Sorry to spam a bit more, but memory is returning...
I wrote:

> can agree to that.
> used it to play music too, a bit.
>
> there was a time when I occasionally used it as small terminal,
> at the university, at home, or even elsewhere,
> to connect via vnc to a session running on the desktop at the office.
> with a tiny font, an xterm would be big enough to read email via mh.
>
> I also used it on occasion when diagnosing plan 9 cpu server in
> the server room - it was a nice small machine to bring there.

I also used it to play games (sudoku, rush hour)

> bulky it was - I have the bigger sleeve that allows
> use of two thin pcmcia cards (e.g. wifi and hard disk).
>
> I don't know exactly why I stopped using it...
> somehow the use I had for it disappeared, I guess.

and there was also the issue that suspend/resume was
not working for me, if I remember well
(though it has been working for others - did it work for you, John?)

and thus battery life was rather limited, unless I would
shutdown/reboot every time, which was less convenient.

Axel.




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4426 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[John Floren]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Axel Belinfante
<Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 20:13 , John Floren wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Stuart Morrow
>
> <morrow.stuart@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful enough
> that
>
> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on battery
> might
>
> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do with Plan 9 -
>
> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.
>
> I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the ambient
>
> noise, which also seems fairly trivial.
>
> What did you folks with bitsies and iPAQs find useful? Any of you
>
> still packing one?
>
> -Jack
>
> I have fiddled with an iPAQ/bitsy on and off over the last few years.
>
> What's really nice about it is that you get access to a "real
>
> computer"; I booted wirelessly off my CPU server, which meant I had
>
> access to all my files and music, which was nice because the bitsy's
>
> sound hardware is supported. As long as you have a wireless
>
> connection, it's the best way to use a PDA.
>
>
> Sorry to spam a bit more, but memory is returning...
> I wrote:
>
> can agree to that.
> used it to play music too, a bit.
>
> there was a time when I occasionally used it as small terminal,
> at the university, at home, or even elsewhere,
> to connect via vnc to a session running on the desktop at the office.
> with a tiny font, an xterm would be big enough to read email via mh.
>
> I also used it on occasion when diagnosing plan 9 cpu server in
> the server room - it was a nice small machine to bring there.
>
> I also used it to play games (sudoku, rush hour)
>
> bulky it was - I have the bigger sleeve that allows
> use of two thin pcmcia cards (e.g. wifi and hard disk).
>
> I don't know exactly why I stopped using it...
> somehow the use I had for it disappeared, I guess.
>
> and there was also the issue that suspend/resume was
> not working for me, if I remember well
> (though it has been working for others - did it work for you, John?)
> and thus battery life was rather limited, unless I would
> shutdown/reboot every time, which was less convenient.
> Axel.

I seem to remember something like that. I don't recall exactly what it
was. I might see if I still have the bitsy in storage somewhere, now
that RIT has just installed a much more extensive wireless network.

I think my biggest problem was with getting wireless set up. I was
also unable to build a new image from source; I don't remember exactly
the problem but I had to fall back on one you provided. Also, the
keyboard gets kind of "squished" when the scribble area is displayed,
the backspace key in particular was nearly impossible to hit. If I
could have successfully built a new image, I could have disabled the
scribble portion, but in my case I was out of luck.

John
-- 
"Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing" -- Rob Pike

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Tim Newsham]

>> However, there is one "smart" feature that for me would be useful enough that
>> carrying a big chunky thing that lives for a quarter of a day on battery might
>> actually be worth it, and the feature is so damn trivial to do with Plan 9 -
>> setting/unsetting the ring tone to/from silent in a cron job.
>
> I would like my ringtone volume to adjust periodically to the ambient
> noise, which also seems fairly trivial.

This is getting a little off-topic, but:

http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-strazz-nightringerfree-qpzD.aspx
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-levelup-foxyringtrial-qxwE.aspx

I imagine these are fairly easy to do in other smart phone
platforms, too...

> -Jack

Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jack Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:54 AM,  <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/
>
> Okay, Maht.  You just cost me $125 :)  I just couldn't resist.

I was wondering how you'd network one of those things:

http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_in_Nanonote

-Jack

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jack Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:54 AM,  <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/15/qi-hardwares-tiny-hackable-ben-nanonote-now-shipping/
>>
>> Okay, Maht.  You just cost me $125 :)  I just couldn't resist.
>
> I was wondering how you'd network one of those things:
>
> http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_in_Nanonote

Off-topic-ish, that 320x240 screen is probably the biggest challenge,
trying to find some usable UI in that space. I think the idea of a
native Inferno port is great. Anyone doing anything fun on the UI side
with the Nintendo DS port?

It also looks like Android on this thing might be a possibility:

http://www.laptopmag.net/3837-google-android-port-for-xburst-cpus-on-its-way.html

...so drawterm for Android might also be a worthwhile direction.

-Jack

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[blstuart]

>> I was wondering how you'd network one of those things:
>>
>> http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_in_Nanonote

I thought that was terribly cute.  The other option is talking
PPP over the USB.  You'd be tethered, but you could at least
talk.

> Off-topic-ish, that 320x240 screen is probably the biggest challenge,
> trying to find some usable UI in that space. I think the idea of a
> native Inferno port is great. Anyone doing anything fun on the UI side
> with the Nintendo DS port?

Yeah, that's what I was figuring too.  Even at a 5x7 font, you can't
do better than about a 50x30 character screen.  If all the graphical
elements in wm are shrunk down to somewhere around 10 pixels,
it might just be possible to put a shell window that's almost usable.
Acme in a single column might even work.  Of course, I'd really
like to have more resolution, but this is a start and who knows
what we might see in a second generation.

BLS

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[ron minnich]

What flavor MIPS is it? 64 bit (I doubt it)? Is it a version that the
compilers will like?

ron

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[blstuart]

> What flavor MIPS is it? 64 bit (I doubt it)? Is it a version that the
> compilers will like?

Good point.  I do know it's 32-bit, but so far that's all I know.
Honestly, I had noticed it was MIPS and didn't really think
any further about it.  The good news is that both big-endian
and little-endian compilers are there, and they're described
as being for the M3000 family.  I suspect (or hope anyway)
that the processor on the device is a superset of the 3000,
and given how old the 3000 is, that's probably not too unreasonable
an expectation.

BLS

Re: [9fans] more little hardware

[Jack Johnson]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> Off-topic-ish, that 320x240 screen is probably the biggest challenge,
> trying to find some usable UI in that space. I think the idea of a
> native Inferno port is great.

Sorry, last of the blather.  It also seems ideal for Octopus:

http://plan9.escet.urjc.es/ls/octopus.html

-Jack