Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[erik quanstrom]

what language are you using?
do you need a general 9p library or just a few bits?

- erik

On Fri May 26 12:04:27 CDT 2006, lionkov@lanl.gov wrote:
> I know about that one, but it depends on too many external jars. I  
> need a simple 9P2000 client library.
> 
> On May 26, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> 
> >> How can I get that library. I started writing one myself, but if  
> >> the one you
> >> mention is good enough, it will save me the effort :)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> 	Lucho
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros said:
> >>> :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000,  
> >>> but
> >>> :  haven't tried it myself.
> >>>
> >>> One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
> >>> it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).
> >
> > I'm not sure if nemo is talking about the same one. i saw this one  
> > recently:
> >
> > http://www.resc.rdg.ac.uk/jstyx/
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[David Leimbach]

On 6/1/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> i wrote:
> > the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> > i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.
>
> i've put them on sources in /contrib/rog/infauth.
> it contains the various extra bits that i use to give myself a standalone
> inferno on a USB keyfob (or whereever) with keys not held in the clear,
> and an implementation of 9cpu.
>

That's great!  Thanks!

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[rog]

i wrote:
> the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.

i've put them on sources in /contrib/rog/infauth.
it contains the various extra bits that i use to give myself a standalone
inferno on a USB keyfob (or whereever) with keys not held in the clear,
and an implementation of 9cpu.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 20:48 +0200, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
> I think there´s no problem. It´s not mine. It´s made by a student
> as one of his projects. I don´t have the source right now (I think he didn´t
> copy it to our main file server). As soon as I get the source I´ll drop a line
> here (it may take a few days).
> 
> Also, to avoid confussion, it´s a server-side library, not a client side library
> (although it could be used for that as well).

  Why should it matter that much ?  For the major part it doesn't
matter to 9P whether you're a client or a server.
  
   Oh well, I'm downloading it right now...

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[LiteStar numnums]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

I concurr, that would be a sweet tool to have.

On 5/30/06, Gabriel Diaz <gabidiaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Can you put that on sources/contrib? seems a nice tool to have :)
>
> gabi
>
> On 5/30/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/30/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > > > 9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
> > > > communicate with a plan 9 box.
> > >
> > > the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> > > i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.
> > >
> >
> > That would be most excellent.  Thanks for offering.
> >
>



-- 
Nietzsche's first step is to accept what he knows. Atheism for him goes
without saying and is "contructive and
radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke a kind of
crisis and a final decision about the
problem of atheism. The world continues on its course at random and there is
nothing final about it. Thus God
is useless, since He wants nothing in particular. If he wanted something --
and here we recognize the traditional
forumlation of the problem of evil -- He would have to assume responsiblity
for "a sum total of pain and inconsistency
which would debase the entire value of being born."
-- Albert Camus, L'Homme révolté

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1857 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[rog]

> Sources is authentication free now right?  So I should be able to
> mount from Inferno too right?

yes.

% mount -A tcp!sources.cs.bell-labs.com!9fs /n/sources
% lc /n/sources
9grid/   contrib/ lsr      plan9/   xen/
adm/     extra/   patch/   wiki/
% 

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[David Leimbach]

On 5/30/06, Gabriel Diaz <gabidiaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Can you put that on sources/contrib? seems a nice tool to have :)
>
> gabi

Sources is authentication free now right?  So I should be able to
mount from Inferno too right?

Dave

>
> On 5/30/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/30/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > > > 9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
> > > > communicate with a plan 9 box.
> > >
> > > the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> > > i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.
> > >
> >
> > That would be most excellent.  Thanks for offering.
> >
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Gabriel Diaz]

Hello

Can you put that on sources/contrib? seems a nice tool to have :)

gabi

On 5/30/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > > 9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
> > > communicate with a plan 9 box.
> >
> > the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> > i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.
> >
>
> That would be most excellent.  Thanks for offering.
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[David Leimbach]

On 5/30/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > 9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
> > communicate with a plan 9 box.
>
> the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
> i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.
>

That would be most excellent.  Thanks for offering.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[rog]

> 9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
> communicate with a plan 9 box.

the bits aren't in the current inferno distribution.
i can send you (or anyone else that wants) the files necessary.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[David Leimbach]

On 5/30/06, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > I never really got email set up for Inferno, though I'd like to.  Got
> > any pointers?
> i haven't got email set up for inferno either. i tend to 9cpu to a plan 9 box
> and use nedmail. (sometimes i use acme, drawterm style, but i find the lag on the remote
> graphics to be a bit disconcerting; i like the immediacy of a shell window)
>

9cpu?  I have cpu but it's not immediately obvious that that could
communicate with a plan 9 box.

I'd love to be able to log into mordor via Inferno instead of ssh :)

Drawterm of course works ok but I have the same lag on graphics issues.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[rog]

> I never really got email set up for Inferno, though I'd like to.  Got
> any pointers?
i haven't got email set up for inferno either. i tend to 9cpu to a plan 9 box
and use nedmail. (sometimes i use acme, drawterm style, but i find the lag on the remote
graphics to be a bit disconcerting; i like the immediacy of a shell window)

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Corey]

Thanks for the informative posts, very helpfull!

I've got a VA 1000 sitting next to me with a plan 9 install cd ready
to go; and I'll soon be running Inferno on my linux box .

Beers,

Corey

On Friday 26 May 2006 00:10, Corey wrote:
> When would one prefer/opt to use/deploy Plan9 over Inferno, 
> and/or vice versa?
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Skip Tavakkolian]

anyone thinking about this, could you consider restricting it
to the subset of Java libraries (and the few syntax restrictions)
that Google's web toolkit supports?   That way it could be compiled
to HTML/Javascript using GWT compiler.

> I think there´s no problem. It´s not mine. It´s made by a student
> as one of his projects. I don´t have the source right now (I think he didn´t
> copy it to our main file server). As soon as I get the source I´ll drop a line
> here (it may take a few days).
> 
> Also, to avoid confussion, it´s a server-side library, not a client side library
> (although it could be used for that as well).
> 
> 
> On 5/26/06, Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote:
>> > :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
>> > :  haven't tried it myself.
>> >
>> > One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
>> > it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).
>>
>>   Nemo, would it be possible to share this library with the rest of us ?
>>   We're currently trying to tie our GUI "lego-bricks" together and having
>>   them talk in 9p would be a big plus.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Francisco J Ballesteros]

I think there´s no problem. It´s not mine. It´s made by a student
as one of his projects. I don´t have the source right now (I think he didn´t
copy it to our main file server). As soon as I get the source I´ll drop a line
here (it may take a few days).

Also, to avoid confussion, it´s a server-side library, not a client side library
(although it could be used for that as well).


On 5/26/06, Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote:
> > :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
> > :  haven't tried it myself.
> >
> > One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
> > it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).
>
>   Nemo, would it be possible to share this library with the rest of us ?
>   We're currently trying to tie our GUI "lego-bricks" together and having
>   them talk in 9p would be a big plus.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Roman Shaposhnick]

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote:
> :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
> :  haven't tried it myself.
> 
> One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
> it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).

  Nemo, would it be possible to share this library with the rest of us ?
  We're currently trying to tie our GUI "lego-bricks" together and having
  them talk in 9p would be a big plus.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[David Leimbach]

> although i run plan 9 on my laptop, i have inferno on a USB keyfob which i can
> plug into any random machine (windows, linux, ...) and get access to a relatively
> sane environment. i use it to connect back to plan 9 machines, or to data-bridge
> across uncooperative local networks. i'm using it now from a linux box to write
> this email.
>

I never really got email set up for Inferno, though I'd like to.  Got
any pointers?

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Latchesar Ionkov]

I know about that one, but it depends on too many external jars. I  
need a simple 9P2000 client library.

On May 26, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:

>> How can I get that library. I started writing one myself, but if  
>> the one you
>> mention is good enough, it will save me the effort :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 	Lucho
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros said:
>>> :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000,  
>>> but
>>> :  haven't tried it myself.
>>>
>>> One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
>>> it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).
>
> I'm not sure if nemo is talking about the same one. i saw this one  
> recently:
>
> http://www.resc.rdg.ac.uk/jstyx/
>

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> How can I get that library. I started writing one myself, but if the one you
> mention is good enough, it will save me the effort :)
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Lucho
> 
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros said:
>> :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
>> :  haven't tried it myself.
>> 
>> One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
>> it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).

I'm not sure if nemo is talking about the same one. i saw this one recently:

http://www.resc.rdg.ac.uk/jstyx/

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Latchesar Ionkov]

Hi,

How can I get that library. I started writing one myself, but if the one you
mention is good enough, it will save me the effort :)

Thanks,
	Lucho

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Fco. J. Ballesteros said:
> :  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
> :  haven't tried it myself.
> 
> One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
> it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[rog]

the main technical difference is that inferno is designed to operate in a single,
flat memory space. it relies on a well behaved virtual machine to avoid processes
stamping on each others' memory (hence the use of Limbo rather than C - no difficult
pointer arithmetic to check). this avoids the need for an MMU, and also makes it easy
to run hosted under other systems without the poking around with page table entries.
it makes a number of things simpler (it goes without paging and swapping) and potentially
faster.

although i run plan 9 on my laptop, i have inferno on a USB keyfob which i can
plug into any random machine (windows, linux, ...) and get access to a relatively
sane environment. i use it to connect back to plan 9 machines, or to data-bridge
across uncooperative local networks. i'm using it now from a linux box to write
this email.

> ( is "Styx" just a renamed 9P2000? )

they differ in the way that authentication takes place, although the
protocols themselves are identical (as witness the fact that i'm now
doing a "cpu" from inferno to plan 9 i.e. plan 9 is importing a namespace
exported by inferno).

inferno's authentication is end-to-end, and takes place outside the protocol;
in fact it's protocol agnostic: once the authentication is done, all traffic
over the connection is secured, regardless of what's sent. the authentication
is public key based - the two parties involved mutually authenticate - no online
third party is required (nice when you're getting two random boxes to
talk to one another behind a firewall).

plan 9 relies on an accessible third party ("authentication server"); it
sometimes does in-band authentication (Tauth - not as secure, but historical),
and sometimes end-to-end.

if no authentication is used, there is no difference at all.

> Is it accurate to say that "Styx" is a conformant implementation
> of 9fs2000 that is written in Limbo rather than C? ( similar to v9fs
> under linux? )

being a protocol, Styx is not written in any particular language
(well, technical English, i suppose). programs that talk styx/9p
have been written in C, limbo, java, ...

> I've become very interested in distributed computing, as approached
> from a Plan9 perspective, and I am very much appreciating the general 
> "keep it small, clean/correct and focused" mentality/objective which 
> is very apparent.

when learning about the distributed systems aspects of inferno and plan 9,
most skills are transferrable.

having said that, i'd recommend learning limbo because it makes for a very
clean interface to the system. the concurrency aspects in particular are
compelling compared with the same interface in C, and when dealing with
distributed systems they're a real boon. IMHO it's a "sweet spot" language;
many aspects of the syntax and semantics are exactly right.

as geoff suggested, it's not a bad idea to try both.
whatever you do, enjoy! it's a nicely elegant world, and well worth playing
with, even if all you do is take away some of the good ideas and approaches
to doing things.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Fco. J. Ballesteros]

:  I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
:  haven't tried it myself.

One of my students made a 9p library in Java, (I know...), and
it can speak well with Inferno (no auth, though).

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[geoff]

The Inferno kernel was created by modifying a then-current Plan 9
kernel.  I believe that they do share device drivers, but the
Vitanuova folks can probably answer that better than I can.

See the Plan 9 and Inferno manuals and nemo's Plan 9 3rd edition
kernel commentary for design and implementation papers.

I believe that the current Styx will interoperate with 9P2000, but
haven't tried it myself.

Limbo is an attractive language in its own right, more so for
concurrent applications than the lower-level uses of C.  Its facilities
for writing concurrent programs are far more pleasant than something
like Posix pthreads.

Portability doesn't strike me as a basis for choosing Limbo (on
Inferno) over C on Plan 9.  Both rely on the portability of the
underlying operating system.

Given that you're unlikely to have the right hardware to usefully run
native Inferno, you'll have to run Inferno hosted on some other
operating system, so that might was well be Plan 9.  Then you can try
them both.

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Corey]

On Friday 26 May 2006 00:16, geoff@collyer.net wrote:
> Inferno and Plan 9 kernels are similar, having common
> ancestry. 
>

So Inferno and Plan 9 kernels are both forks from a common source?

How far have the two divurged?  Do/can they share device drivers?

( Also, are there any design white-papers/documents that explain or
discuss the kernel implementations/concepts? ( similar to what is
available for the, say, L4 kernels ) )


> Both systems use essentially 9P2000 as their
> network filesystem protocol.
>

Is it accurate to say that "Styx" is a conformant implementation
of 9fs2000 that is written in Limbo rather than C? ( similar to v9fs
under linux? )


> If you want to write in Limbo, you have to run Inferno, but you can
> run Inferno on (l)unix, Windows or Plan 9.  If you want to write
> applications in C, you can't use Inferno.
> 

Aside from the considerable portability provided by Inferno via the
Dis virtual-machine, are there any other obvious/compelling
reasons for choosing to develop in Limbo?

After doing quite a bit of reading, I get the general notion that the 
primary functional difference between plan9 and inferno consists in a
choice/requirement of portability vs. language.( ie Inferno/Limbo vs. 
Plan9/C )

I'm wondering whether Inferno's current requirement of a new/"obscure"
language (limbo) as its sole development platform hindered wider usage.
i.e., I'm curious as to how many deployments resulted in Plan 9 over 
Inferno specifically due to language ( C vs Limbo ) 
considerations/requirements/preference.

The point of all this, is that - aside from sheer interest in the nuances of
these two operating environments - I've hit a point in my own independent 
evaluations of Plan 9 and Inferno, that I'm unable to decide where best to 
focus my future learning/experimentation - Plan 9 or Inferno. 

Since I lack any practical experience under either OS -- it's not a matter 
of "install them both and see which you like better", such as the case would
be with, say, two Linux distributions -- I'm hoping to get some further info
from an experienced/knowledgable forum.

Thanks for your time!

Re: [9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[geoff]

Very briefly, Inferno and Plan 9 kernels are similar, having common
ancestry.  Application programs on Inferno must be written in Limbo;
it's the only language supported.  Application programs on Plan 9 are
usually written in C. Both systems use essentially 9P2000 as their
network filesystem protocol.

If you want to write in Limbo, you have to run Inferno, but you can
run Inferno on (l)unix, Windows or Plan 9.  If you want to write
applications in C, you can't use Inferno.

[9fans] this is not an advocacy question

[Corey]

However I'm curious:

When would one prefer/opt to use/deploy Plan9 over Inferno, 
and/or vice versa?

As far as I've been able to tell, it appears that Inferno is pretty
much Plan9, but with a couple "additions" - namely: Limbo and
Dis - and thus a different development model. Do they both use
the same kernel? How much common userland do they share?
( is "Styx" just a renamed 9P2000? )

To rephrase my question:

To what extent(s) does Inferno differ from Plan9? What approximate
percentage of Inferno consists of Plan9 v4?

( I'm not yet looking for pros/cons of either - just what the actual,
fundamental technical/functional differences are. )

Thanks for the clue!  I come from a unix client/server background,
so I'm still working at simply getting my head around this "new"
environment from a 40,000 ft. view.

I've become very interested in distributed computing, as approached
from a Plan9 perspective, and I am very much appreciating the general 
"keep it small, clean/correct and focused" mentality/objective which 
is very apparent.

Thanks!