[9fans] (no subject)

[9fans] (no subject)

[Steve Simon]

In a comunity spirit...

Why not generate a proto file for mkfs/mkext to copy the
minimal set of files for the auth server to your compact
flash, and then post the proto file on the wiki?

-Steve

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Kenji Okamoto]

> Why not generate a proto file for mkfs/mkext to copy the
> minimal set of files for the auth server to your compact
> flash, and then post the proto file on the wiki?

I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺

Kenji

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Lucio De Re]

> I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺

I hope _this_ is not the discriminant between Linux and Plan 9
audiences?

++L

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Steve Simon]

> I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺

Aw, no fair.

I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.

It has been said before, the limited of support plan9 gets
in the world is partly due to its steep learning curve, and
partly the lack of "standard" applications.

Writing a web browser difficult, we all agree, however editing the
wiki to make it more up to date, accurate and helpfull is easy
(and yes I have been).

-Steve

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Boris Maryshev]

On Tuesday 27 July 2004 13:54, Steve Simon wrote:
> > I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺
What's collaboration in Plan 9 way, then? Bashing Linux all together?
>
> Aw, no fair.
>
> I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
> worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
> there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.
They pop-up here from time-to-time. It's just that they pop-up only here...
>
> It has been said before, the limited of support plan9 gets
> in the world is partly due to its steep learning curve, and
> partly the lack of "standard" applications.
Like what application?
>
> Writing a web browser difficult, we all agree, however editing the
> wiki to make it more up to date, accurate and helpfull is easy
> (and yes I have been).
Maybe writing a web browser, or office suite or anything like this is not the 
interesting area to work on with Plan 9? Maybe it'd be more interesting to 
study Plan 9's distributed nature and invent new things on top of it? What 
about putting httpd working in a 9grid and distributing load between nodes, 
which might be located worldwide (Akamai would be happy...)?
>
> -Steve
I wouldn't say "steep learning curve" either. It was made following KISS 
principle, remember? I'd say, that the hurdle comes when you try to make it 
work on an unsupported hardware and fail. So what we need are not 
"applications", but better support for hardware. And new ideas exploiting 
Plan 9's philosophy.

boris
-- 
But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the
system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed,
analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses.
		-- Bruce Leverett,
		"Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers"

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Justin Herald]

I would agree that most of the true power comes from it's distributed 
nature and developing on top of that and supporting new hardware should 
be the top priority. On the other hand, if we want to get p9 out there 
and more in the spotlight, there need to be some more common 
applications for it that SysAdmins and developers are familiar with to 
get them intrigued in the OS and it's potential


On Jul 27, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Boris Maryshev wrote:

> On Tuesday 27 July 2004 13:54, Steve Simon wrote:
>>> I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺
> What's collaboration in Plan 9 way, then? Bashing Linux all together?
>>
>> Aw, no fair.
>>
>> I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
>> worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
>> there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.
> They pop-up here from time-to-time. It's just that they pop-up only 
> here...
>>
>> It has been said before, the limited of support plan9 gets
>> in the world is partly due to its steep learning curve, and
>> partly the lack of "standard" applications.
> Like what application?
>>
>> Writing a web browser difficult, we all agree, however editing the
>> wiki to make it more up to date, accurate and helpfull is easy
>> (and yes I have been).
> Maybe writing a web browser, or office suite or anything like this is 
> not the
> interesting area to work on with Plan 9? Maybe it'd be more 
> interesting to
> study Plan 9's distributed nature and invent new things on top of it? 
> What
> about putting httpd working in a 9grid and distributing load between 
> nodes,
> which might be located worldwide (Akamai would be happy...)?
>>
>> -Steve
> I wouldn't say "steep learning curve" either. It was made following 
> KISS
> principle, remember? I'd say, that the hurdle comes when you try to 
> make it
> work on an unsupported hardware and fail. So what we need are not
> "applications", but better support for hardware. And new ideas 
> exploiting
> Plan 9's philosophy.
>
> boris
> -- 
> But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the
> system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed,
> analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses.
> 		-- Bruce Leverett,
> 		"Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers"
>

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Francisco Ballesteros]

Don't know if it qualifies as a great project or not.
But we're changing things in Plan 9 to make it adapt to
changes in the environment. We'll drop a line in the near future about
this. But it might still take a month or two.
`
PS: I got this bounced and I'm retrying. Sorry if it leads to dups.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:54:16 +0100, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> > I think because this is Plan 9 fans list, not Linux mailing list? ☺
> 
> Aw, no fair.
> 
> I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
> worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
> there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.
> 
> It has been said before, the limited of support plan9 gets
> in the world is partly due to its steep learning curve, and
> partly the lack of "standard" applications.
> 
> Writing a web browser difficult, we all agree, however editing the
> wiki to make it more up to date, accurate and helpfull is easy
> (and yes I have been).
> 
> -Steve
>

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
> worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
> there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.

We're working on a project.  I'll tell everyone about it when it is
ready.

Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[geoff]

One of the things I like about Plan 9 is that it requires almost no
system administration, so adding more `common applications' for system
administrators would seem to be just creating busy work.  Barring
problems with new hardware, after initial installation and set up of
the main file server (which is never likely to resemble installation
of any other system), here are the system administration activities
needed:

- (re)configure the mail system: edit /mail/lib/rewrite;

- add a new machine: add one entry to /lib/ndb/local or your local
equivalent, plug the machine into a switch, insert a boot floppy if
it's a PC, turn it on;

- add a new printer: add one line to /sys/lib/lp/devices and one entry
to /lib/ndb/local or your local equivalent, plug it in, turn it on;

- add a new user: type a newuser command on your file server console,
have the user login and run /sys/lib/newuser.

Perhaps I've forgotten something, but those are the main activities
and they're all pretty easy.  Setting up a console server (add a Perle
serial-port multiplexor, run some serial cables, and edit
/lib/ndb/consoledb) makes administration even easier.  There's no
sendmail, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.  There's
no BIND, so administrators can toss that huge O'Reilly book.  Without
those two, the main (l)unix security bugs are absent.

Familiar applications aren't going to get people intrigued about Plan
9, they're going to lull them into thinking that Plan 9 is Just
Another Unix.

I much prefer 8c & 8l to gcc & gld and /n/dump to CVS.  Providing gcc,
gld, CVS and the like would make developers think `what's so special
about this system?', rather than `gee, there are some different and
interesting ideas here'.

I don't think that the lack of interest by the world at large is due
to a lack of comfortable, familiar applications.  I think it's got
more to do with a lack of understanding of why Plan 9 is (*really!*)
interesting and a shortage of people who find that utterly compelling.
People have given various excuses in the past (lack of gcc or X11,
cost, licence terms) but if you're really enthused, none of that
matters.  Unix was a hit because it filled a niche, and what passes
for Unix these days is still filling that niche, and for a lot of
peple that's good enough.  Those of us who can't imagine going back to
living on what passes for Unix are a definite minority.

So what should be done?  I don't think we should measure success by
counting noses.  I'm not even sure that Plan 9 needs to be a
``success''.  We're using it, we like it and perhaps that's enough.
Keeping up with new hardware is a worthy goal.  We're all stretched a
bit thin; as far as I know, none of us are able to work on Plan 9
development full-time.  People have various pieces of work in
progress.  Perhaps after the election, the economy will pick up and
we'll all have more time to devote.

`Plan 9: a ``Failure'' for 17 years and still ``failing''.'

Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[andrey mirtchovski]

I wholeheartedly agree with Geoff's observations! Just let me add my 2¢:

> - add a new machine: add one entry to /lib/ndb/local or your local
> equivalent, plug the machine into a switch, insert a boot floppy if
> it's a PC, turn it on;

my biggest success in showcasing Plan 9 so far has been with an 8-way
proliant machine that i turned onto a node on our network with a
single floppy.  somehow everybody was under the impression that plan 9
is not a mature OS. they've all assumed that simply because it lacks
X, mplayer, a browser and a bloated GUI it wouldn't have things like
SMP.

'try doing that with globus' i said at the time; 'it's all nice, but nobody uses
plan9' was the response.

somehow traditional "systems" stuff like working out how to support
non-trivial hardware in an elegant manner has been put aside and eye
candy has come into focus.  i'm sure people would be much more
interested in p9 if it could render OpenGL on 18 screens concurrently
faster (and cheaper) than anyone else :)

andrey

ps: Geoff, do you mind if i put your post in the wiki?

Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[boyd, rounin]

> I wholeheartedly agree with Geoff's observations! Just let me add my 2¢:

so do i.

i had a 2nd Ed floppy that booted to 8 1/2, sam, ftpfs and telnet.

it was a squeeze, but it did work.

Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[andrey mirtchovski]

> i had a 2nd Ed floppy that booted to 8 1/2, sam, ftpfs and telnet.
>
> it was a squeeze, but it did work.

the first time i tried Plan 9 was with the 2nd ed 4-floppy download
from their web page, sometime in 99..  i didn't know what to do with
it, but it did look nice :) "press almost any key to reboot".

andrey

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Dan Cross]

"Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> I was disturbed by David and Russ leaving the labs, and I am
> worried that the 9fans community is losing momentum - perhaps
> there are many great projects under way but I don't hear of them.

It is (losing momentum).  But then, it only had very little to begin
with.  The problem, as I see it (several months removed from the
`scene' as I am right now; I was probably lobbing hand gernades over a
berm somewhere when they left the labs), is that the driving force of
recent years is gone: building a comfortable system for doing research,
but one that's interesting in its own right.

With the deflating of Murray Hill as a hub for activity - mainly
development, but also pushing on the license issues and such - there's
little direction in the system.  Everyone who was influential in the
early days was using Plan 9 for one of two reasons: they wanted a nice
environment to do computer science research, or they were interested in
operating systems research and Plan 9 was an interesting thing to
study.  But that's the kind of thing you can do when you work in a
university or an industrial research lab that starts projects with the
understanding that it might be 30 years before they show a positive
ROA.

Most of those people now has other things they have to do; they can't
afford to continue hammering on Plan 9 full time anymore, and no one
single organization seems to exist to fill the void.  What's more, as
they leave the `community' (btw- I really hate that term), or at least
become more reclusive, they take with them the sense of taste and style
that made Plan 9 unique.  After all, the thing that makes the system
unique is the aggressive development of ideas taken from earlier
systems, with some new stuff thrown in.  But the thing that makes it
*good* is the quality of the system as a whole.  Anybody can probably
re-implement the ideas in Plan 9, but the trick is to do it well, and
that is very much harder indeed.

I doubt the appropriate environment to take up the torch of Plan 9
development exists anywhere in the world: a bunch of really smart
people that also have good style sitting around (by agreement!) in the
same physical room with the capital and support to work on whatever
they want, and who want to work on something like this.  Much as people
want to tote the ``feel-good'' party line of open source and disjoint
development efforts coordinated over the Internet, I really doubt
that's the answer: the world has yet to see a *good* project emerge
from such techniques.  What's lacking is a suitable research center to
pick up where Bell Labs left off and push the system further.  Without
systems research, you can't sustain a research system.  There's no
systems research going on, therefore the system is withering and
dying.  Without good people driving it, the system will take a nose
dive because, frankly, most people aren't skilled enough to do it
properly (look at Linux!).  If Rob Pike is a master chef, then most of
us are Subway sandwich artists, and an even greater portion of the
population can't even make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Or maybe I'm just overly pessimistic.  As Geoff points out, people are
using it and satisfied with it, and maybe that's enough.

> It has been said before, the limited of support plan9 gets
> in the world is partly due to its steep learning curve, and
> partly the lack of "standard" applications.

Yes, but bear in mind that Plan 9 wasn't really designed with world
domination in mind.  It's a research system.  That it evolved into a
very comfortable environment for the people who built it to do *other*
research on made it possible to pursue other goals on it is almost an
accident of history.  So the question is, who cares how much support it
gets in the world?  Should the goal of any system apriori be to attract
lots of users?  I don't think so.  It should do something interesting
in a clean, elegant way.  But that's just my personal opinion.

> Writing a web browser difficult, we all agree, however editing the
> wiki to make it more up to date, accurate and helpfull is easy
> (and yes I have been).

That's a noble and worthy goal in its own right, and I won't
argue with it.

	- Dan C.

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

[Justin Herald]

On Jul 28, 2004, at 12:08 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

> ...
> Yes, but bear in mind that Plan 9 wasn't really designed with world
> domination in mind.  It's a research system.  That it evolved into a
> very comfortable environment for the people who built it to do *other*
> research on made it possible to pursue other goals on it is almost an
> accident of history.  So the question is, who cares how much support it
> gets in the world?  Should the goal of any system apriori be to attract
> lots of users?  I don't think so.  It should do something interesting
> in a clean, elegant way.  But that's just my personal opinion.
A good point, for 'tis a research OS (I know some of my classmates and
I have had fun with it), but then again, how did Unix come about? I
guess bringing with us the knowledge we have gained from earlier OSes
also brought with us similar ambitions to get a stronger user base. I
want to see a stronger user base so that the development and
propagation of this OS realizes its potential.

Re: [9fans] more plan 9 developers & users [was (no subject)]

[Charles Forsyth]

>>'try doing that with globus' i said at the time; 'it's all nice, but nobody uses
>>plan9' was the response.

i'm not surprised.  in many cases they don't know enough about mainstream distributed
systems work, let alone the more obscure parts.  also, to re-apply another quip
``if you think WSRF is the answer to your problem, you've got two problems''.

Re: [9fans] angst

[Charles Forsyth]

i don't think i use it for `research'; i use it for programming.

Re: [9fans] angst

[Bruce Ellis]

i use it for both.

Charles Forsyth wrote:

> i don't think i use it for `research'; i use it for programming.