9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [9fans] Foundation new releases question
@ 2021-04-01 16:31 leimy2k via 9fans
  2021-04-01 17:03 ` sirjofri
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: leimy2k via 9fans @ 2021-04-01 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]

What's the recommended way to participate in the foundation's community for new releases?

I've been very interested in trying out the various Plan 9 forks these days, and I see that the foundation page actively links to 9legacy. Is that the official fork of the foundation going forward?

There's been a bit of drift between the forks, down to the fields of the Srv struct which might make it trickier to port some of the good work being done between forks.

Sorry if this has been covered in some other way!

Looking forward to how everything plays out and thanks to everyone who's been keeping Plan 9 rolling over the years.

- David Leimbach
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M55813d41cbdffb9605aecda4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1536 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-01 16:31 [9fans] Foundation new releases question leimy2k via 9fans
@ 2021-04-01 17:03 ` sirjofri
  2021-04-02  4:20   ` Lucio De Re
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: sirjofri @ 2021-04-01 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans


01.04.2021 18:31:38 leimy2k via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>:
> What's the recommended way to participate in the foundation's community 
> for new releases?
>
> I've been very interested in trying out the various Plan 9 forks these 
> days, and I see that the foundation page actively links to 9legacy. Is 
> that the official fork of the foundation going forward?
>
> There's been a bit of drift between the forks, down to the fields of 
> the Srv struct which might make it trickier to port some of the good 
> work being done between forks.
>
> Sorry if this has been covered in some other way!
>
> Looking forward to how everything plays out and thanks to everyone 
> who's been keeping Plan 9 rolling over the years.

I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e 
release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is 4e 
plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front, 
which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe also 
the system which supports most hardware, maybe.

sirjofri

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M28e71f251bda19e6e837130a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-01 17:03 ` sirjofri
@ 2021-04-02  4:20   ` Lucio De Re
  2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
  2021-04-03 15:27     ` Ethan Gardener
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Lucio De Re @ 2021-04-02  4:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not
respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that
nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally
subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly
a critical event in Plan 9's existence.

On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9fans@sirjofri.de> wrote:
> I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e
> release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is 4e
> plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front,
> which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe also
> the system which supports most hardware, maybe.
>
I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I
make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely,
I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of
solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just
symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap
may well recall this exchange.

The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call
9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path
of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment
disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into
Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy.

I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as
possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the
viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a
research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted).

Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for
contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared
product will help attaining such an objective. That two different
paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but
officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of
redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence.

We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the
Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and
totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me.

There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now,
where my fears will be allayed or solidified.

Lucio.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mc2c17a3454be4b4912515379
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-02  4:20   ` Lucio De Re
@ 2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
  2021-04-02  8:34       ` vic.thacker
  2021-04-02 15:06       ` Devon H. O'Dell
  2021-04-03 15:27     ` Ethan Gardener
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Devon H. O'Dell @ 2021-04-02  5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

I've been pretty silent on the list for years, and I hope that as a
former collaborator on foundation efforts and former Plan 9 GSoC
co-admin and mentor, and assurance that my silence hasn't been
ignorance, that my opinion still has weight with folks in p9f.

I have to admit a bit of surprise that the foundation will accept GSoC
projects for 9front without linking 9front on its page. Additionally,
the about page doesn't describe any of the 9front efforts. While I
have not been a fan of some interactions between 9fans and 9front over
the years, these politics seem largely antiquated, and my impression
is that the 9front community "political jokes" are (at least in the
past 5 years) much less acerbic, if present at all. The system itself
is the most active in the community, with bugfixes, new hardware
support, and new (purist-compatible) features not present in any other
"fork".

I'm not a fan of what's starting to look like some weird form of
historical revisionism. Functionality-wise, 9front is tip-of-tree.
Realistically, 9front is tip-of-tree. This is the third or fourth
thread asking why 9front has no mention on p9f.org. Why does 9front
have no mention on p9f.org?

Unlike Lucio, I have no desire to encourage nor coordinate
consolidation of forks. I don't think that's necessary. The ecosystem
is fractured, and has been for nearly 2 decades. I don't think that's
a problem. We can admit that we're a fractured ecosystem, and embrace
that. P9f seems to do that by accepting funds for GSoC contributions
to 9front, without any acknowledgement of 9front's presence outside of
soliciting project ideas. Without assigning malice or blame, this is
not correct. It should be easy to see how this is politically
problematic.

Kind regards,

--dho

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not
> respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that
> nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally
> subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly
> a critical event in Plan 9's existence.
>
> On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9fans@sirjofri.de> wrote:
> > I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e
> > release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is 4e
> > plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front,
> > which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe also
> > the system which supports most hardware, maybe.
> >
> I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I
> make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely,
> I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of
> solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just
> symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap
> may well recall this exchange.
> 
> The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call
> 9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path
> of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment
> disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into
> Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy.
> 
> I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
> fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
> at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as
> possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the
> viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a
> research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted).
> 
> Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for
> contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared
> product will help attaining such an objective. That two different
> paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but
> officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of
> redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence.
> 
> We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the
> Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and
> totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me.
> 
> There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now,
> where my fears will be allayed or solidified.
> 
> Lucio.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M72dfa21c3a33bccd6db3fc64
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
@ 2021-04-02  8:34       ` vic.thacker
  2021-04-02 15:06       ` Devon H. O'Dell
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: vic.thacker @ 2021-04-02  8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Hello all,

My question is, "Where can we find the official Plan 9 Foundation's main branch so folks can get start sending pull requests?"  It would be nice to see the community members collaborate toward a 5th edition.  

Thanks,
Vic

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M2cde896c9ab7e2c8c3fd5469
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
  2021-04-02  8:34       ` vic.thacker
@ 2021-04-02 15:06       ` Devon H. O'Dell
  2021-04-02 16:53         ` hiro
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Devon H. O'Dell @ 2021-04-02 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5511 bytes --]

This was unnecessarily complain-y and overly political. "It would be nice
for p9f.org to also link 9front" is all I really meant here. I'm sorry for
this message, and appreciate that p9f is both nascent and nobody's actual
job.

Kind regards,

--dho

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 22:25 Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been pretty silent on the list for years, and I hope that as a
> former collaborator on foundation efforts and former Plan 9 GSoC
> co-admin and mentor, and assurance that my silence hasn't been
> ignorance, that my opinion still has weight with folks in p9f.
>
> I have to admit a bit of surprise that the foundation will accept GSoC
> projects for 9front without linking 9front on its page. Additionally,
> the about page doesn't describe any of the 9front efforts. While I
> have not been a fan of some interactions between 9fans and 9front over
> the years, these politics seem largely antiquated, and my impression
> is that the 9front community "political jokes" are (at least in the
> past 5 years) much less acerbic, if present at all. The system itself
> is the most active in the community, with bugfixes, new hardware
> support, and new (purist-compatible) features not present in any other
> "fork".
>
> I'm not a fan of what's starting to look like some weird form of
> historical revisionism. Functionality-wise, 9front is tip-of-tree.
> Realistically, 9front is tip-of-tree. This is the third or fourth
> thread asking why 9front has no mention on p9f.org. Why does 9front
> have no mention on p9f.org?
>
> Unlike Lucio, I have no desire to encourage nor coordinate
> consolidation of forks. I don't think that's necessary. The ecosystem
> is fractured, and has been for nearly 2 decades. I don't think that's
> a problem. We can admit that we're a fractured ecosystem, and embrace
> that. P9f seems to do that by accepting funds for GSoC contributions
> to 9front, without any acknowledgement of 9front's presence outside of
> soliciting project ideas. Without assigning malice or blame, this is
> not correct. It should be easy to see how this is politically
> problematic.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --dho
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not
> > respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that
> > nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally
> > subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly
> > a critical event in Plan 9's existence.
> >
> > On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9fans@sirjofri.de> wrote:
> > > I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e
> > > release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is 4e
> > > plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front,
> > > which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe
> also
> > > the system which supports most hardware, maybe.
> > >
> > I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I
> > make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely,
> > I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of
> > solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just
> > symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap
> > may well recall this exchange.
> >
> > The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call
> > 9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path
> > of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment
> > disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into
> > Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy.
> >
> > I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
> > fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
> > at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as
> > possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the
> > viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a
> > research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted).
> >
> > Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for
> > contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared
> > product will help attaining such an objective. That two different
> > paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but
> > officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of
> > redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence.
> >
> > We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the
> > Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and
> > totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me.
> >
> > There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now,
> > where my fears will be allayed or solidified.
> >
> > Lucio.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > 9fans: 9fans
> > Permalink:
> https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mc2c17a3454be4b4912515379
> > Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M7307d555b6b404c31b2c8ab4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7549 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-02 15:06       ` Devon H. O'Dell
@ 2021-04-02 16:53         ` hiro
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-04-02 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

is the p9f website not a wiki? trying to fix this i managed to 9p
mount something, but didn't find the index page...

whoever added the miller and 9legacy links might be able to help us out?

On 4/2/21, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was unnecessarily complain-y and overly political. "It would be nice
> for p9f.org to also link 9front" is all I really meant here. I'm sorry for
> this message, and appreciate that p9f is both nascent and nobody's actual
> job.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --dho
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 22:25 Devon H. O'Dell <devon.odell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been pretty silent on the list for years, and I hope that as a
>> former collaborator on foundation efforts and former Plan 9 GSoC
>> co-admin and mentor, and assurance that my silence hasn't been
>> ignorance, that my opinion still has weight with folks in p9f.
>>
>> I have to admit a bit of surprise that the foundation will accept GSoC
>> projects for 9front without linking 9front on its page. Additionally,
>> the about page doesn't describe any of the 9front efforts. While I
>> have not been a fan of some interactions between 9fans and 9front over
>> the years, these politics seem largely antiquated, and my impression
>> is that the 9front community "political jokes" are (at least in the
>> past 5 years) much less acerbic, if present at all. The system itself
>> is the most active in the community, with bugfixes, new hardware
>> support, and new (purist-compatible) features not present in any other
>> "fork".
>>
>> I'm not a fan of what's starting to look like some weird form of
>> historical revisionism. Functionality-wise, 9front is tip-of-tree.
>> Realistically, 9front is tip-of-tree. This is the third or fourth
>> thread asking why 9front has no mention on p9f.org. Why does 9front
>> have no mention on p9f.org?
>>
>> Unlike Lucio, I have no desire to encourage nor coordinate
>> consolidation of forks. I don't think that's necessary. The ecosystem
>> is fractured, and has been for nearly 2 decades. I don't think that's
>> a problem. We can admit that we're a fractured ecosystem, and embrace
>> that. P9f seems to do that by accepting funds for GSoC contributions
>> to 9front, without any acknowledgement of 9front's presence outside of
>> soliciting project ideas. Without assigning malice or blame, this is
>> not correct. It should be easy to see how this is politically
>> problematic.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> --dho
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I need time to assimilate mindset changing concepts, I should not
>> > respond as quickly as I am doing here, so please understand that
>> > nothing below is intended to offend anyone, it is more a totally
>> > subjective and poorly formulated knee-jerk reaction to what is clearly
>> > a critical event in Plan 9's existence.
>> >
>> > On 4/1/21, sirjofri <sirjofri+ml-9fans@sirjofri.de> wrote:
>> > > I know only 4 currently active Plan 9 systems. (1) The official 4e
>> > > release, which is ... well it works, I guess. (2) 9legacy, which is
>> > > 4e
>> > > plus patches (fixes and modern stuff). (3) the RPi forks. (4) 9front,
>> > > which might be the biggest and the farthest away from 4e, but maybe
>> also
>> > > the system which supports most hardware, maybe.
>> > >
>> > I had a brief exchange with Cinap quite a long time ago and whereas I
>> > make no claim to follow the Bell Labs philosophy particularly closely,
>> > I figured that the divergence between BL and 9front had sort of
>> > solidified with the introduction of Go. Or perhaps those were just
>> > symptoms and the core philosophies had a nature of their own. Cinap
>> > may well recall this exchange.
>> >
>> > The bottom line as I see it, is that whereas 9legacy and what I call
>> > 9miller attempt to follow a conservative path, 9front has taken a path
>> > of its own and only fragments of Cinap's efforts (without for a moment
>> > disparaging all other 9front contributors) can be assimilated into
>> > Plan 9 without some shift in philosophy.
>> >
>> > I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
>> > fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
>> > at a philosophical level and the two forks be reconciled as far as
>> > possible. But a compromise position needs to take into account the
>> > viability of Plan 9 as something different from being merely a
>> > research OS (which I think has been more or less exhausted).
>> >
>> > Agreeing on a new role (perhaps precisely as a target for
>> > contributions by a community with a different mindset) for a shared
>> > product will help attaining such an objective. That two different
>> > paths may need to be followed to arrive there seems inevitable, but
>> > officially cooperating along those two paths would save a lot of
>> > redundancy and reduce the risk of further divergence.
>> >
>> > We need to talk, seriously, about where we're going. The risk that the
>> > Plan 9 Foundation may successfully dominate the Plan 9 landscape and
>> > totally alienate the 9front contributors quite frankly horrifies me.
>> >
>> > There, it's been said. This seems to be the place, at least for now,
>> > where my fears will be allayed or solidified.
>> >
>> > Lucio.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> > 9fans: 9fans
>> > Permalink:
>> https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mc2c17a3454be4b4912515379
>> > Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M88c3d4a2736ee21761a57434
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-02  4:20   ` Lucio De Re
  2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
@ 2021-04-03 15:27     ` Ethan Gardener
  2021-04-03 15:37       ` hiro
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Ethan Gardener @ 2021-04-03 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 5:20 AM, Lucio De Re wrote:
> I think that the "purity" (imaginary as it may be, it is an historical
> fact) of BL Plan 9 and the practicality of 9front should be discussed
> at a philosophical level 

To toss in my bit (although it's really more anecdote than philosophy): Years ago, I recall a strong devotion to purity of concept amongst core 9front developers. They didn't want to make changes for change's sake. I'm still amused/confused that 9fans at that time started accusing 9front of exactly what they weren't doing: making changes for change's sake! ;) But in the years since then, some small non-fix changes have been made.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M0153a79925764b9754495ada
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-03 15:27     ` Ethan Gardener
@ 2021-04-03 15:37       ` hiro
  2021-04-03 15:39         ` hiro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-04-03 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> But in the years since then, some small non-fix changes have been made.

and many many many more fixes and hardware support changes (mostly
additions) have been made :P

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M4675a398b3ec5d7070eadb5d
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-03 15:37       ` hiro
@ 2021-04-03 15:39         ` hiro
  2021-04-03 15:47           ` Keith Gibbs
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-04-03 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

btw everybody, remember how labs people added a syscall just for go?
and how that breaks compatibility for everybody?
9front didn't like it. but I guess we prefer to stay as compatible as
feasible in addition to trying to prevent scenarios like these forced
upon us (by labs, ironic eh?)

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M69744db934179ccb2865f173
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-03 15:39         ` hiro
@ 2021-04-03 15:47           ` Keith Gibbs
  2021-04-03 18:17             ` hiro
  2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Keith Gibbs @ 2021-04-03 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

It's almost as if the accusations that 9front in some way undermines the core
philosophies of Plan 9 are not motivated by facts, but more invented in the
minds of people who just don't like 9front people being in charge of 9front.

Almost...

-pixelheresy


On 21/04/03 05:39PM, hiro wrote:
> btw everybody, remember how labs people added a syscall just for go?
> and how that breaks compatibility for everybody?
> 9front didn't like it. but I guess we prefer to stay as compatible as
> feasible in addition to trying to prevent scenarios like these forced
> upon us (by labs, ironic eh?)

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Ma3df4e5fe3b0ecfb6c09d1f4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-03 15:47           ` Keith Gibbs
@ 2021-04-03 18:17             ` hiro
  2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-04-03 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

nobody is in charge. maybe that's what is so horrifying ;)

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M3ff118089e93859a7b4fe42a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-03 15:47           ` Keith Gibbs
  2021-04-03 18:17             ` hiro
@ 2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
  2021-04-06  2:05               ` Anthony Martin
  2021-04-08 14:39               ` cinap_lenrek
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Ethan Gardener @ 2021-04-05 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Keith Gibbs wrote:
> It's almost as if the accusations that 9front in some way undermines the core
> philosophies of Plan 9 are not motivated by facts, 

There was a lot of grumpiness around when that accusation got started.


> On 21/04/03 05:39PM, hiro wrote:
> > btw everybody, remember how labs people added a syscall just for go?
> > and how that breaks compatibility for everybody?
> > 9front didn't like it. but I guess we prefer to stay as compatible as
> > feasible in addition to trying to prevent scenarios like these forced
> > upon us (by labs, ironic eh?)

Yep. I might be able to understand that change, but less so the later breaking change to 9p auth. There was no reason for it at all; p9any already allows different cyphers. Thankfully, it was easy to integrate without breaking dpi9k, but after all the care we'd taken to preserve 9p, I found it demoralizing. (I have this great idea for integrating file move into 9p, but "no, we do not break 9p!") And I got the impression that the 9p change was requested by the very people who accused 9front the most, but I wasn't really paying attention by then so I might very well be wrong about that.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M6daae820c4155549c65c5709
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
@ 2021-04-06  2:05               ` Anthony Martin
  2021-04-08 14:39               ` cinap_lenrek
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Anthony Martin @ 2021-04-06  2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Ethan Gardener <eekee57@fastmail.fm> once said:
> the later breaking change to 9p auth

Which change was that?

  Anthony

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M5a6466d3fd80eaa026b0f9dc
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
  2021-04-06  2:05               ` Anthony Martin
@ 2021-04-08 14:39               ` cinap_lenrek
  2021-04-09 12:57                 ` Ethan Gardener
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: cinap_lenrek @ 2021-04-08 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Yep. I might be able to understand that change, but less so the later breaking change to 9p auth.

What 9p change for auth are you talking about?

The dp9ik implementation in 9front just uses p9any to negotiate
it and p9sk1 is still supported; tho by default we have p9sk1
disabled at the authentication server now to prevent the offline
dictionary attack on the DES encrypted tickets that p9sk1 uses
(tho it can be enabled by a flag in the authservers startup script).

The code changes to have both auth protocols work concurrently
was actually the thing that took the most work and it took
over a year of transition period until we could disable
p9sk1 by default.

I'm not aware of anyone changing 9p.

--
cinap

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-M611da16b4751d70c9cefd61d
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Foundation new releases question
  2021-04-08 14:39               ` cinap_lenrek
@ 2021-04-09 12:57                 ` Ethan Gardener
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Ethan Gardener @ 2021-04-09 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021, at 3:39 PM, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote:
> > Yep. I might be able to understand that change, but less so the later breaking change to 9p auth.
> 
> What 9p change for auth are you talking about?
> 
> The dp9ik implementation in 9front just uses p9any to negotiate
> it and p9sk1 is still supported; tho by default we have p9sk1
> disabled at the authentication server now to prevent the offline
> dictionary attack on the DES encrypted tickets that p9sk1 uses
> (tho it can be enabled by a flag in the authservers startup script).
> 
> The code changes to have both auth protocols work concurrently
> was actually the thing that took the most work and it took
> over a year of transition period until we could disable
> p9sk1 by default.
> 
> I'm not aware of anyone changing 9p.

I'm confused now. I'm sure someone official bypassed the existing mechanism to add a new auth protocol. I thought the existing mechanism was p9any, but perhaps I was wrong.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc472e4a0c0b6f084-Mdec75a41815793ccfe5cc9b4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-09 12:58 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-01 16:31 [9fans] Foundation new releases question leimy2k via 9fans
2021-04-01 17:03 ` sirjofri
2021-04-02  4:20   ` Lucio De Re
2021-04-02  5:25     ` Devon H. O'Dell
2021-04-02  8:34       ` vic.thacker
2021-04-02 15:06       ` Devon H. O'Dell
2021-04-02 16:53         ` hiro
2021-04-03 15:27     ` Ethan Gardener
2021-04-03 15:37       ` hiro
2021-04-03 15:39         ` hiro
2021-04-03 15:47           ` Keith Gibbs
2021-04-03 18:17             ` hiro
2021-04-05 11:43             ` Ethan Gardener
2021-04-06  2:05               ` Anthony Martin
2021-04-08 14:39               ` cinap_lenrek
2021-04-09 12:57                 ` Ethan Gardener

9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/9fans

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 9fans 9fans/ http://inbox.vuxu.org/9fans \
		9fans@9fans.net
	public-inbox-index 9fans

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.9fans


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git