Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Brian L. Stuart]

On Sun, 12/31/17, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:
> I honestly don’t think Plan9 or Inferno will become
> “general use” without (at the very least) a modern
> browser,

For which we can all be grateful.  "General use" is not a
good thing to be desired.  One of the biggest reasons I
moved away from Linux was that it was becoming too
mainstream for me.

> Inferno, dis and 9p seem like a good fit for
> embedded devices,

Very true.

> So I’d like to know if anyone here knows about
> recent efforts to run Inferno on other tiny
> machines...

Not particularly recent, but several years ago I ported
Inferno to the SunSPOT device.  As I recall, the version
I was using had 1MB of RAM and 4MB of flash.  It took
some squeezing (like severely reducing the size of the
ARP tables), but I did get it running including IPv6 over
the 802.15.4 radio in it.

BLS

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Steve Simon]

mmm, not sure i agree.

i would be very happy to see a modern browser on plan9, though
i would not want anyone to spend a lot of time supporting one.

a few years ago cinap got opera and firefox to run as linux binaries under linuxemu. i spent some time tweaking that code to run more recent releases but sadly the linux kernel api was changing too fast for my spare time to keep up with it.

i still think this might be a good approach but have less time (more kids) to work on such a project.

the other route might be to piggy back on some of the harvey os work.

in the meantime i just use remote desktop to a windows box.

-Steve


> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:28, Brian L. Stuart <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 12/31/17, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I honestly don’t think Plan9 or Inferno will become
>> “general use” without (at the very least) a modern
>> browser,
> 
> For which we can all be grateful.  "General use" is not a
> good thing to be desired.  One of the biggest reasons I
> moved away from Linux was that it was becoming too
> mainstream for me.
> 
>> Inferno, dis and 9p seem like a good fit for
>> embedded devices,
> 
> Very true.
> 
>> So I’d like to know if anyone here knows about
>> recent efforts to run Inferno on other tiny
>> machines...
> 
> Not particularly recent, but several years ago I ported
> Inferno to the SunSPOT device.  As I recall, the version
> I was using had 1MB of RAM and 4MB of flash.  It took
> some squeezing (like severely reducing the size of the
> ARP tables), but I did get it running including IPv6 over
> the 802.15.4 radio in it.
> 
> BLS

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[hiro]

> i would be very happy to see a modern browser on plan9, though
> i would not want anyone to spend a lot of time supporting one.

> in the meantime i just use remote desktop to a windows box.

what's the difference really? i also remote into a windows box, from
my linux box. and i drawterm into my 9front box. why not have all of
those, at the same time, instead of faking one to be more like the
other?

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Rui Carmo]

> On 31 Dec 2017, at 20:43, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> i would be very happy to see a modern browser on plan9, though
>> i would not want anyone to spend a lot of time supporting one.
> 
>> in the meantime i just use remote desktop to a windows box.
> 
> what's the difference really? i also remote into a windows box, from
> my linux box. and i drawterm into my 9front box. why not have all of
> those, at the same time, instead of faking one to be more like the
> other?
> 

Perhaps because then you wouldn’t need those other boxes as much? I find the notion of having a minimal self-sufficient environment (i.e., one with creature comforts like a browser to read documentation) interesting - and achievable on other operating systems.

R.

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[hiro]

"minimal self-sufficient environment": agreed, the 9front man pages,
documentation and fqa can be read with page, man and mothra for the
web, served by sl's rc-httpd/werc setup.

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Ori Bernstein]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:35:46 +0000
Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Perhaps because then you wouldn’t need those other boxes as much? I find the
> notion of having a minimal self-sufficient environment (i.e., one with
> creature comforts like a browser to read documentation) interesting - and
> achievable on other operating systems.
> 
> R.
> 

Exactly. That's why I finally caved and ordered a new laptop, one that can
run aux/vmx on 9front, and use a virtual machine with a browser without
needing access to another machine.

-- 
Ori Bernstein <ori@eigenstate.org>

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Bakul Shah]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:28:48 +0000 "Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Brian L. Stuart writes:
> On Sun, 12/31/17, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I honestly don't think Plan9 or Inferno will become
> > "general use" without (at the very least) a modern
> > browser,
> 
> For which we can all be grateful.  "General use" is not a
> good thing to be desired.  One of the biggest reasons I
> moved away from Linux was that it was becoming too
> mainstream for me.

I don't think we can assume a more popular plan9 would have
met the fate of Linux. What bothers (some of) us is not that
Linux is mainstream but that it is far too complicated and
kitchensinky. Guess we will never know!

> > Inferno, dis and 9p seem like a good fit for
> > embedded devices,
> 
> Very true.
> 
> > So I'd like to know if anyone here knows about
> > recent efforts to run Inferno on other tiny
> > machines...
> 
> Not particularly recent, but several years ago I ported
> Inferno to the SunSPOT device.  As I recall, the version
> I was using had 1MB of RAM and 4MB of flash.  It took
> some squeezing (like severely reducing the size of the
> ARP tables), but I did get it running including IPv6 over
> the 802.15.4 radio in it.

Wasn't Styx-on-a-Brick running on a device with 32K RAM + 16K
ROM? Though that was for controlling a Lego Mindstorm device.

Recently on another mailing list someone wanted a secure
"personal" encrypted filesystem on a removable SDcard. 
Even the encryption key is fed at runtime so if you just
have the SD card, it appears to contain random junk.  I
suggested a Raspi Zero but I think it would be possible to
build this using an ESP8266 device, talking 9p (or html).
May be you can even send the FS encryption key over 9p!

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 266 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wasn't Styx-on-a-Brick running on a device with 32K RAM + 16K
> ROM? Though that was for controlling a Lego Mindstorm device.
>

I think that was just a 9P fs on the lego brick.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 607 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Steve Simon]

Russ had a set of diffs to kfs to make it an encrypted filesystem...

-Steve

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Brian L. Stuart]

On Sun, 12/31/17, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> I don't think we can assume a more popular plan9 would have
> met the fate of Linux. What bothers (some of) us is not that
> Linux is mainstream but that it is far too complicated and
> kitchensinky.

I'd like to think that there can be widespread use without the
bloat and absurdities.  However, I suspect that overly complicated
and kitchensinky is necessary for mainstream.  From what I've
observed over the last 40 years, even among those who are
technically educated, the subset who will choose well-designed
over packed-with-unused-features is sadly small.  Seeing how
many "modern" programmers immediately reach for the obscene
JavaScript "frameworks" for everything they do is enough to
drive one to drink.

I will admit that the cause and effect might also work in the other
direction.  There does seem to be a very real case to be made
that as a system becomes more popular, it attracts more people
who lack the judgement and the good taste to say 'no' to features
that don't fit well.

Personally, I think that popularity and bloat form a positive
feedback loop that stalls out once the complexity budget is
exhausted.  From then on, all future releases merely rearrange
the bugs.  Certainly, I'd love to be proved wrong.  But I can't
think of any examples where the mainstream user and developer
communities were able to resist the latest "ooh shiny."  Just
look how long it's taken for the community to realize that flash
was a bad idea.

BLS

[9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Rui Carmo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1799 bytes --]

I honestly don’t think Plan9 or Inferno will become “general use” without (at the very least) a modern browser, but that was not what motivated me to post here.

Inferno, dis and 9p seem like a good fit for embedded devices, and having run it successfully on a Raspberry Pi a few months ago (https://bitbucket.org/infpi/inferno-rpi), I was wondering if the kernel and network stack would be shrunk down to something like an ESP8266 (although don’t think that has enough heap space).

A while back there was the Aijuboard (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/aijuboard#/), but nothing else seems to have popped up since 2015, and any industrial applications of Inferno that might be interesting are likely squirreled away in commercial companies...

So I’d like to know if anyone here knows about recent efforts to run Inferno on other tiny machines...

Happy New Year,

R.

> On 30 Dec 2017, at 19:57, Andre Wingor <andrewingor@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/30/17, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That reminds me. Weren’t there some Inferno ports for micro controllers,
> 
> Until now I did not have a need for this, so I do not know.
> But often there is a need for a compact live VM with a ready OS that
> must be run on a public terminal. This is a problem. Live USB I can
> not load to the terminal, it forbidden. I found only Puppy Linux in
> the Virtual Box, but it works very slowly.
> 
> I many times used Inferno on the desktop in the past, but I had
> FreeBSD. It was usability. And here on Windows10x64 now the emu don't
> start. It's a pity.
> 
> A modern OS to become popular should have a Live USB and ready-made
> assemblies for almost everything. I'm sorry that Inferno does not have
> a power now.
> 
> -- 
> http://andr.ru
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2642 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:

> I honestly don’t think Plan9 or Inferno will become “general use” without
> (at the very least) a modern browser, but that was not what motivated me to
> post here.
>
> Inferno, dis and 9p seem like a good fit for embedded devices, and having
> run it successfully on a Raspberry Pi a few months ago (
> https://bitbucket.org/infpi/inferno-rpi), I was wondering if the kernel
> and network stack would be shrunk down to something like an ESP8266
> (although don’t think that has enough heap space).
>

I started porting a 9p library and writing an fs for esp8266 using
espressif sdk, but stopped once I found out tls1.2 isn't supported (not
fixable; bug in firmware).
I think esp32 is a better choice, but then, why not use rpi-zero or other
ARM, MIPS devices. Arguments for esp32 for power budget reasons might be
exaggerated a little (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDpuBJYFJ7Y&t=131s
)
there is also proprietary firmware involved.

In my opinion, esp8266 should be categorized as an "attractive nuisance".


> A while back there was the Aijuboard (https://www.indiegogo.com/
> projects/aijuboard#/), but nothing else seems to have popped up since
> 2015, and any industrial applications of Inferno that might be interesting
> are likely squirreled away in commercial companies...
>
> So I’d like to know if anyone here knows about recent efforts to run
> Inferno on other tiny machines...
>
> Happy New Year,
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2539 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[hiro]

> I started porting a 9p library and writing an fs for esp8266 using
> espressif sdk, but stopped once I found out tls1.2 isn't supported (not
> fixable; bug in firmware).
> I think esp32 is a better choice, but then, why not use rpi-zero or other
> ARM, MIPS devices. Arguments for esp32 for power budget reasons might be
> exaggerated a little (see
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDpuBJYFJ7Y&t=131s
> )
> there is also proprietary firmware involved.
>
> In my opinion, esp8266 should be categorized as an "attractive nuisance".

what about esp8266's power usage? is *that* lower? why does it take 4!
seconds to send data?!

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Shane Morris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2529 bytes --]

I've got one of these boards kicking around:

https://core-electronics.com.au/realtek-ameba-board.html

ARM Cortex-M3 CPU, wifi, my board has the NFC, there is one that looks like
a NodeMCU, it has basic features. I've not used the smaller board.

I'm using an Arduino bootloader on my Ameba for now, its able to have the
flash ROM mounted, and the Arduino toolchain copies the compiled firmware
file over, a bit like the Freescale Kinetis "Freedom" boards I was using in
2013. There is a JTAG port, non-populated, I don't have the JTAG programmer
- of course.

This board with an Inferno system on it, and perhaps an SPI LCD driver,
would be awesome. I see now the Nextion HMI LCDs are a serial port
controlled affair, you upload your graphics and all that to the micro SD
card as *another* compiled firmware. I was going to source a Nextion HMI
along with a Cytron motor driver late next week from Western Australia, no
holding my breath on when it'll turn up however.

The board and screen assembly is meant to go into a control head project
for a potentially remotely controlled ride in locomotive, a grid operating
system would be perfect for what I'm trying to accomplish. It will have CAN
Bus, RS485, Dallas One Wire, et al, all embedded type communications
standards, and be a rather souped up PLC type affair.

Except I have little idea of how to port anything. I guess I could go back
to the work done on Lynxline, and try to replicate it somehow, I believe I
read Charles report done for him on Vita Nuova about the Styx on a Brick,
I'd gotten rid of my Lego RIS2.0 many years before I saw that report,
shame. The "Brick" was quite limited, so is 9Pea on ATMega, iirc...

My $0.02 likely not worth $0.02 due to inflation. Happy New Year all!

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I started porting a 9p library and writing an fs for esp8266 using
> > espressif sdk, but stopped once I found out tls1.2 isn't supported (not
> > fixable; bug in firmware).
> > I think esp32 is a better choice, but then, why not use rpi-zero or other
> > ARM, MIPS devices. Arguments for esp32 for power budget reasons might be
> > exaggerated a little (see
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDpuBJYFJ7Y&t=131s
> > )
> > there is also proprietary firmware involved.
> >
> > In my opinion, esp8266 should be categorized as an "attractive nuisance".
>
> what about esp8266's power usage? is *that* lower? why does it take 4!
> seconds to send data?!
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3294 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Inferno on microcontrollers

[Rui Carmo]

> On 31 Dec 2017, at 21:05, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I started porting a 9p library and writing an fs for esp8266 using
>> espressif sdk, but stopped once I found out tls1.2 isn't supported (not
>> fixable; bug in firmware).
>> I think esp32 is a better choice, but then, why not use rpi-zero or other
>> ARM, MIPS devices. Arguments for esp32 for power budget reasons might be
>> exaggerated a little (see
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDpuBJYFJ7Y&t=131s
>> )
>> there is also proprietary firmware involved.
>> 
>> In my opinion, esp8266 should be categorized as an "attractive nuisance".
> 
> what about esp8266's power usage? is *that* lower? why does it take 4!
> seconds to send data?!


I honestly don’t see it as slow, or as a nuisance, but then again I have several around the house, some incorporated into commercial products like the Sonoff S20 outlets, which I control over MQTT with open source firmware.

Where it relates to power consumption, I have sensors running in low-power mode powered by AA batteries that last me many months, since the ESP8266 only consumes 40 _micro_ amperes of power in deep sleep, and waking up every 5 minutes to read a sensor and pushing out a single data packet isn’t especially taxing on the batteries.

R.