* [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? @ 2011-02-13 10:49 Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-13 14:51 ` Sergey Zhilkin 2011-02-15 8:08 ` Fernan Bolando 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-13 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --] This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork? [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 231 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-13 10:49 [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-13 14:51 ` Sergey Zhilkin 2011-02-14 6:59 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-15 8:08 ` Fernan Bolando 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Sergey Zhilkin @ 2011-02-13 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --] Hello ! :) Go to the http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/ and read the few lines of text. On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com>wrote: > This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any > discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could > go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork? -- С наилучшими пожеланиями Жилкин Сергей With best regards Zhilkin Sergey [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 877 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-13 14:51 ` Sergey Zhilkin @ 2011-02-14 6:59 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 7:10 ` Anthony Sorace 2011-02-14 21:01 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-14 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --] Been there, done that. Not a line of text saying why 9atom appeared nor why the changes are not merged back into plan9. 2011/2/13 Sergey Zhilkin <szhilkin@gmail.com> > Hello ! :) > > Go to the http://www.quanstro.net/plan9/9atom/ and read the few lines of > text. > > > > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any >> discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could >> go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork? > > > > > -- > С наилучшими пожеланиями > Жилкин Сергей > With best regards > Zhilkin Sergey > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1356 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-14 6:59 ` Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-14 7:10 ` Anthony Sorace 2011-02-14 7:52 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 21:01 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Anthony Sorace @ 2011-02-14 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 119 bytes --] No big mystery: the Bell Labs folks are more conservative about folding in certain kinds of changes than Erik is. [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 210 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-14 7:10 ` Anthony Sorace @ 2011-02-14 7:52 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 15:44 ` Sergey Zhilkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-14 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --] Any specific rules as to which changes are going to be accepted and which are not? 2011/2/14 Anthony Sorace <a@9srv.net> > No big mystery: the Bell Labs folks are more > conservative about folding in certain kinds > of changes than Erik is. > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 482 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-14 7:52 ` Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-02-14 15:44 ` Sergey Zhilkin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Sergey Zhilkin @ 2011-02-14 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 541 bytes --] Ask Geoff :) I think, that plan9 code-base is used somewhere else at Alcatel-Lucent. :) 2011/2/14 Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com> > Any specific rules as to which changes are going to be accepted and which > are not? > > 2011/2/14 Anthony Sorace <a@9srv.net> > > No big mystery: the Bell Labs folks are more >> conservative about folding in certain kinds >> of changes than Erik is. >> >> > -- С наилучшими пожеланиями Жилкин Сергей With best regards Zhilkin Sergey [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1114 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-14 6:59 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 7:10 ` Anthony Sorace @ 2011-02-14 21:01 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-14 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Mon Feb 14 02:01:04 EST 2011, e.gorodinsky@gmail.com wrote: > Been there, done that. Not a line of text saying why 9atom appeared > nor why the changes are not merged back into plan9. there was at least one person i told that a certain bit of atom hardware "works great," only to find out that it did not work great with the distribution iso. i created 9atom as a stopgap but it has continued to be useful since the standard distribution doesn't support ken's file server and not everything has been merged back in. it will be great to get everything merged back in at some point. i see its ongoing utility for me as a way to get some things i'm working on packaged up so people can use them. for example, one big change in 9atom is unicode 6.0 support. (that is, 32-bit runes.) i've used it to do a bit with cuniform. i hope 9atom doesn't offend anyone. gripe at me off like if you want to. i hope to get the cannonical sources online in the near future. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-13 10:49 [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-13 14:51 ` Sergey Zhilkin @ 2011-02-15 8:08 ` Fernan Bolando 2011-02-21 20:27 ` Jacek Masiulaniec 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Fernan Bolando @ 2011-02-15 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com> wrote: > This question has been bugging me for some time and I haven't found any > discussions on the matter. It seems that at least the devices support could > go into the original plan9 kernel. What's the reason for having a fork? --This is just how I see this, you can choose to ignore the rest of the message. i have always considered 9atom and a few other independent plan9 stuff as something similar to the openbsd release strategy. Theres a stable release and a current. 9atom is more like openbsd-current it's bleeding edge, but it should be _more_ stable and has _more_ hardware support. The official iso is more like openbsd-stable unless something is broken you will only see bug fixes, until bell-labs considers the new stuff as stable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? 2011-02-15 8:08 ` Fernan Bolando @ 2011-02-21 20:27 ` Jacek Masiulaniec 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jacek Masiulaniec @ 2011-02-21 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On 15 February 2011 08:08, Fernan Bolando <fernanbolando@mailc.net> wrote: > i have always considered 9atom and a few other independent plan9 stuff > as something similar to the openbsd release strategy. Theres a stable > release and a current. 9atom is more like openbsd-current it's > bleeding edge, but it should be _more_ stable and has _more_ hardware > support. The official iso is more like openbsd-stable unless something > is broken you will only see bug fixes, until bell-labs considers the > new stuff as stable. This is near total misrepresentation of the OpenBSD release process. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-21 20:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-02-13 10:49 [9fans] Is there a reason for the existence of 9atom? Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-13 14:51 ` Sergey Zhilkin 2011-02-14 6:59 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 7:10 ` Anthony Sorace 2011-02-14 7:52 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-02-14 15:44 ` Sergey Zhilkin 2011-02-14 21:01 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-15 8:08 ` Fernan Bolando 2011-02-21 20:27 ` Jacek Masiulaniec
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).