* [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 @ 2011-07-02 16:15 Robert Seaton 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Robert Seaton @ 2011-07-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Hello, 9fans! I'm a GSoC student working on "Plan 9 From Gentoo", a Gentoo project to create a liveCD that comprises of a Gentoo base-system and a Plan 9-inspired userspace, instead of the typical GNU userspace. However, I'm new to Plan 9, and I'm wondering if veteran 9'ers have any suggestions for novel userspace concepts intro'd by Plan 9 that should be included/documented or that still need to be ported to Linux from Plan 9. These ideas don't necessarily need to be unique to Plan 9, as long as they are different from the typical GNU/Linux fare. Some of the things I have discovered so far: * Drawing windows on the screen via rio and mouse button 2 * Mouse chording * Sending things via plumber * Majority of text can be edited (i.e. old commands in the shell, etc) Thanks, robb ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 16:15 [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Robert Seaton @ 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd 2011-07-17 12:37 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-02 16:29 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-04 6:44 ` Yaroslav 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Jacob Todd @ 2011-07-02 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21 bytes --] Private namespaces. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 28 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd @ 2011-07-17 12:37 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-17 13:54 ` Charles Forsyth 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-07-17 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs CLONE_NEWNS? 2011/7/2 Jacob Todd <jaketodd422@gmail.com>: > Private namespaces. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-17 12:37 ` Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-07-17 13:54 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-18 8:32 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Charles Forsyth @ 2011-07-17 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans >CLONE_NEWNS? privileged processes only ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-17 13:54 ` Charles Forsyth @ 2011-07-18 8:32 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-18 17:14 ` Charles Forsyth 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-07-18 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs That would be the only problem, yeah. 2011/7/17 Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>: >>CLONE_NEWNS? > > privileged processes only > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-18 8:32 ` Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-07-18 17:14 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-19 7:50 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Charles Forsyth @ 2011-07-18 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 390 bytes --] that's certainly a restriction, but a bigger one is that name spaces really come into their own when many, even most, resources are represented through the name space, and it makes sense to remap the name space to change the actual resources accessed through a name. on Linux, significant things are accessed through special system calls and mechanisms, and not through its name space. [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2560 bytes --] From: Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:32:17 +0300 Message-ID: <CAPTfE6V2EVBV-npds5y7GzB2MVVeF=ovBVso+VVyjYHL0cnFNg@mail.gmail.com> That would be the only problem, yeah. 2011/7/17 Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>: >>CLONE_NEWNS? > > privileged processes only > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-18 17:14 ` Charles Forsyth @ 2011-07-19 7:50 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Eugene Gorodinsky @ 2011-07-19 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs One could probably create several fileservers that provide access to the syscalls through the file interface, run them while the system still is in single user mode, then restrict access to those system calls through the capabilities system. I haven't tried it though, so I can't tell for sure, but, from the looks of it, it is possible. 2011/7/18 Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>: > that's certainly a restriction, but a bigger one is that name spaces > really come into their own when many, even most, resources are represented > through the name space, and it makes sense to remap the name space to change > the actual resources accessed through a name. on Linux, significant things > are accessed through special system calls and mechanisms, and not through > its name space. > > ---------- Пересылаемое сообщение ---------- > From: Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky@gmail.com> > To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:32:17 +0300 > Subject: Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 > That would be the only problem, yeah. > > 2011/7/17 Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>: >>>CLONE_NEWNS? >> >> privileged processes only >> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 16:15 [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Robert Seaton 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd @ 2011-07-02 16:29 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 17:24 ` Jack Johnson 2011-07-04 6:44 ` Yaroslav 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Saturday 02 July 2011 18:15:17 Robert Seaton wrote: > (...) > Some of the things I have discovered so far: > * Sending things via plumber > (...) you've made me realize i've been using plumber-like stuff before. back on KDE 3.5, there was that `dcop' thingie that i've employed for plumbing actions and selected text. it worked, it made my day every day back then. dcop had both ease of use and natural introspection. pity dcop is dead now, and dbus can't even deliver the eulogy :-( disclaimer: i'm not a plan 9 person for any viable value of `p9 person' -- dexen deVries > (...) I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, > a browser and a terminal. rjbond3rd in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2692529 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 16:29 ` dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 17:24 ` Jack Johnson 2011-07-02 17:34 ` [9fans] To p9 or not to p9? (was: novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9) dexen deVries 2011-07-02 18:23 ` [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Eli Cohen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Jack Johnson @ 2011-07-02 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com> wrote: > disclaimer: i'm not a plan 9 person for any viable value of `p9 person' I'm in the same boat, but I aspire to be in the other boat. :) -Jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* [9fans] To p9 or not to p9? (was: novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9) 2011-07-02 17:24 ` Jack Johnson @ 2011-07-02 17:34 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 18:23 ` [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Eli Cohen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Saturday 02 July 2011 19:24:07 Jack Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com> wrote: > > disclaimer: i'm not a plan 9 person for any viable value of `p9 person' > > I'm in the same boat, but I aspire to be in the other boat. :) i'm with you there ;-) plan 9 seems to be where the action is those days. and i mean both the software ecosystem, the people that push it forward, and the mindset itself. -- dexen deVries > (...) I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, > a browser and a terminal. rjbond3rd in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2692529 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 17:24 ` Jack Johnson 2011-07-02 17:34 ` [9fans] To p9 or not to p9? (was: novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9) dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 18:23 ` Eli Cohen 2011-07-02 18:36 ` dexen deVries 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Eli Cohen @ 2011-07-02 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1956 bytes --] I have used gentoo extensively and plan9 for a few years now as well, and this concept of "namespaces" for processes is a confusing but interesting concept. maybe you could use grsec to limit the access to gentoo's "file system" at a per-process level. This would be somewhat similar to what plan9 does, but you'd have to also find a good way to bind a directory elsewhere in the tree at a per-process level, unified with what was already there (aka, hopefully NOT like mount -o bind). This is only the tip of the iceberg; plan9 does this per-process filesystem namespacing to set up a good environment for a system which adheres to the orginal unix "philosophies" such as, everything has a "file" to represent it. linux does this well for data on the disk, device nodes, and whatever gets put in /proc. it does not do this, generally, for something like an email message. a good plan9 program, however, is likely to do this. as an example of the power of this concept, `% topng < /dev/screen > screenshot.png' will use the relatively simple program topng to convert the *file* /dev/screen into the *file* screenshot.png. One major difference is X11. In plan9, the system handles the graphics more directly. network export of windows is handled differently. it might be interesting to make a rio for linux which draws directly to /dev/fb0. Or it might be better to convert /dev/fb0 to a /dev/screen on linux, even in userspace, and then more or less use rio for plan9. performance might be an issue, but plan9 people are still waiting on 3d graphics if they even care enough to wait... -Eli On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Jack Johnson <knapjack@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com> > wrote: > > disclaimer: i'm not a plan 9 person for any viable value of `p9 person' > > I'm in the same boat, but I aspire to be in the other boat. :) > > -Jack > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2372 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 18:23 ` [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Eli Cohen @ 2011-07-02 18:36 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 23:10 ` simon softnet ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Saturday 02 July 2011 20:23:02 Eli Cohen wrote: > I have used gentoo extensively and plan9 for a few years now as well, and > this concept of "namespaces" for processes is a confusing but interesting > concept. linux'c `clone()' syscall (the underpinnings of fork()) actually do accept CLONE_NEWNS, CLONE_NEWNET, CLONE_VM and other flags, pretty close to p9's. there's also chroot() that moves an inch into the right direction. however, due to security reasons (the SUID bit comes to mind, but must be other ones too), all that -- and mount() and mount(MS_BIND, ...) -- are restricted to superuser only; what a shame maybe it is be possible to create a SUID-less Linux distro, based on factotum perhaps, that'd allow everybody access to those syscalls and options. > One major difference is X11. In plan9, the system handles the graphics > more directly. afaik, x11 is considered an afterthought, bolted onto POSIX systems, and thus not integrated all that well. you can take a `screenshot' of textual console with the `cat' command, FWIW. -- dexen deVries > (...) I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, > a browser and a terminal. rjbond3rd in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2692529 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 18:36 ` dexen deVries @ 2011-07-02 23:10 ` simon softnet 2011-07-02 23:31 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-07-03 11:06 ` Connor Lane Smith [not found] ` <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: simon softnet @ 2011-07-02 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --] Plan 9 is good because it is a system designed with such principles in mind from the start. I don't see any meaning in Linux "adopting" some set of plan 9 commands...vanity.. On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:36 PM, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>wrote: > On Saturday 02 July 2011 20:23:02 Eli Cohen wrote: > > I have used gentoo extensively and plan9 for a few years now as well, and > > this concept of "namespaces" for processes is a confusing but interesting > > concept. > > linux'c `clone()' syscall (the underpinnings of fork()) actually do accept > CLONE_NEWNS, CLONE_NEWNET, CLONE_VM and other flags, pretty close to p9's. > there's also chroot() that moves an inch into the right direction. > > however, due to security reasons (the SUID bit comes to mind, but must be > other ones too), all that -- and mount() and mount(MS_BIND, ...) -- are > restricted to superuser only; what a shame > > > maybe it is be possible to create a SUID-less Linux distro, based on > factotum > perhaps, that'd allow everybody access to those syscalls and options. > > > > > One major difference is X11. In plan9, the system handles the graphics > > more directly. > > afaik, x11 is considered an afterthought, bolted onto POSIX systems, and > thus > not integrated all that well. you can take a `screenshot' of textual > console > with the `cat' command, FWIW. > > > > -- > dexen deVries > > > (...) I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, > > a browser and a terminal. > rjbond3rd in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2692529 > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2138 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 23:10 ` simon softnet @ 2011-07-02 23:31 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-07-03 8:55 ` simon softnet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-07-02 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > I don't see any meaning in Linux "adopting" some set of plan 9 > commands... Have you read the source code for their cat(1) ??? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 23:31 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-07-03 8:55 ` simon softnet 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: simon softnet @ 2011-07-03 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --] Which distro's version of "text utils" ? hehe .. Let's not start an anti-linux flame war now ... On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) < lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote: > > I don't see any meaning in Linux "adopting" some set of plan 9 > > commands... > > Have you read the source code for their cat(1) ??? > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 656 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 18:36 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 23:10 ` simon softnet @ 2011-07-03 11:06 ` Connor Lane Smith 2011-07-03 14:38 ` Iruatã Souza 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg [not found] ` <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Connor Lane Smith @ 2011-07-03 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs Hey, On 2 July 2011 19:36, dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com> wrote: > linux'c `clone()' syscall (the underpinnings of fork()) actually do accept > CLONE_NEWNS, CLONE_NEWNET, CLONE_VM and other flags, pretty close to p9's. Yeah, clone() is afaik compatible with rfork(), so long as you have CAP_SYS_ADMIN. Similarly mount() and bind(). > afaik, x11 is considered an afterthought, bolted onto POSIX systems, and thus > not integrated all that well. I think what I'd say is the most "novel userspace paradigm" in Plan 9 is its pervasive synthetic filesystems. You have FTP filesystems and so on with FUSE now, but writing something as flexible (technically) as Rio still requires something other than FUSE. But more importantly, since Plan 9 *started* with those synthetic filesystems they're used everywhere, whereas they're pretty uncommon in Linux etc. It would be nice if web browsers used a kind of webfs, and so on. It's unfortunate that clients for dedicated filesystems, like Rio and Acme, need to understand the layout of the directory tree, but that's difficult to work around. Still, FUSE has extended attributes, so you could e.g. configure a window manager just by setting attributes on the 'window manager filesystem' root directory. I know bloated GNU projects are generally frowned upon, but I think it's quite interesting that GNOME's GVFS allows, afaict, per-process synthetic filesystems. But clearly that's extremely ugly compared to Plan 9. On 3 July 2011 00:31, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote: > Have you read the source code for their cat(1) ??? You know Linux != GNU, right? cls ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 11:06 ` Connor Lane Smith @ 2011-07-03 14:38 ` Iruatã Souza 2011-07-03 22:05 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Iruatã Souza @ 2011-07-03 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Connor Lane Smith <cls@lubutu.com> wrote: > Still, FUSE has extended attributes, so you > could e.g. configure a window manager just by setting attributes on > the 'window manager filesystem' root directory. > something like extended attributes can be accomplished by layering file servers. iru ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 14:38 ` Iruatã Souza @ 2011-07-03 22:05 ` Charles Forsyth 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Charles Forsyth @ 2011-07-03 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans >something like extended attributes can be accomplished by layering file servers. or simply make a directory ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 11:06 ` Connor Lane Smith 2011-07-03 14:38 ` Iruatã Souza @ 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 2011-07-03 18:10 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-03 20:44 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2011-07-03 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > I think what I'd say is the most "novel userspace paradigm" in Plan 9 > is its pervasive synthetic filesystems. You have FTP filesystems and > so on with FUSE now, but writing something as flexible (technically) > as Rio still requires something other than FUSE. But more importantly, > since Plan 9 *started* with those synthetic filesystems they're used > everywhere, whereas they're pretty uncommon in Linux etc. It would be > nice if web browsers used a kind of webfs, and so on. Actually, what this discussion keep pointing out is the elegance of the Plan9 authentication model vs. UNIX's superuser scheme. It's the lack of a superuser that makes the whole namespace paradigm work in the first place. --lyndon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2011-07-03 18:10 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-03 20:44 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: dexen deVries @ 2011-07-03 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sunday 03 July 2011 19:57:16 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Actually, what this discussion keep pointing out is the elegance of the > Plan9 authentication model vs. UNIX's superuser scheme. It's the lack > of a superuser that makes the whole namespace paradigm work in the first > place. authentication is a system component by the very nature of the problem it solves, and keeping it off-line in any way (superuser counts as off-line most of the time) or high-latency (superuser again) is a significant problem. in UNIX you have a (non-turing complete) program deployed by the superuser (contents of /etc/{passwd,group}); any protocol (in the broad sense) that makes use of authentication has to take that into account. the current www environment also seems to shifts towards authentication based on OpenID and similar, which i'd liken to factotum in a broad sense. -- dexen deVries > (...) I never use more than 800Mb of RAM. I am running Linux, > a browser and a terminal. rjbond3rd in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2692529 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 2011-07-03 18:10 ` dexen deVries @ 2011-07-03 20:44 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 20:53 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Sun Jul 3 13:58:49 EDT 2011, lyndon@orthanc.ca wrote: > > I think what I'd say is the most "novel userspace paradigm" in Plan 9 > > is its pervasive synthetic filesystems. You have FTP filesystems and > > so on with FUSE now, but writing something as flexible (technically) > > as Rio still requires something other than FUSE. But more importantly, > > since Plan 9 *started* with those synthetic filesystems they're used > > everywhere, whereas they're pretty uncommon in Linux etc. It would be > > nice if web browsers used a kind of webfs, and so on. > > Actually, what this discussion keep pointing out is the elegance of the > Plan9 authentication model vs. UNIX's superuser scheme. It's the lack > of a superuser that makes the whole namespace paradigm work in the first > place. why do you think that the lack of a super user make per-process namespaces work? - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 20:44 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 20:53 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 2011-07-03 20:57 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2011-07-03 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > why do you think that the lack of a super user make per-process namespaces > work? The fact that you own the hardware you are running on means there's no need to provide enhanced priv's (such as root) to protect things like mount(2). And if you do something stupid, the only damage you can do is to yourself. Just look at all the hoops FUSE must jump through to keep people from being able to bodge the entire system. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 20:53 ` Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2011-07-03 20:57 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 21:08 ` andrey mirtchovski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > why do you think that the lack of a super user make per-process namespaces > > work? > > The fact that you own the hardware you are running on means there's no > need to provide enhanced priv's (such as root) to protect things like > mount(2). that's a property of per-process namespaces, not the lack of a root user. in this sense plan 9 has a limited root—the hostowner that owns the devices on a machine and is trusted wrt the authentication protocol. > And if you do something stupid, the only damage you can do is > to yourself. Just look at all the hoops FUSE must jump through to keep > people from being able to bodge the entire system. for some reason, the linux guys have convinced themselves that per process namespaces can't be done without security problems. i see no reason that pam couldn't do plan 9 style authentication with a process running on behalf of root with its own namespace. they've changed everything else in unix, why hold so tightly to the clearly unhelpful ideas? - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 20:57 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 21:08 ` andrey mirtchovski 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich 2011-07-17 16:25 ` Nicolas Bercher 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2011-07-03 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > they've changed everything else in unix, why hold so tightly to the clearly > unhelpful ideas? because it's a cult. things don't make sense in cults. i encountered the following quote the other day, which finally convinced me. you can't rationalize things with this sort of thinking: "It is out of question that git is becoming the standard tool to manage code. It is incredible how clever Linus was in inventing it." http://www.dev-articles.com/article/Git-and-Linus-431001 oh, and there's the whole 'user-level filesystems are bad, mmmkay?!' debacle: http://blog.gluster.com/2011/06/linus-torvalds-doesnt-understand-user-space-storage/ their ecosystem won't allow any synthetic filesystems past /sys anytime soon, nevermind the auth bit. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 21:08 ` andrey mirtchovski @ 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich 2011-07-03 21:38 ` andrew zerger 2011-07-03 21:51 ` andrey mirtchovski 2011-07-17 16:25 ` Nicolas Bercher 1 sibling, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2011-07-03 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs following this thread. do something interesting. - build a system with only plan9port binaries - use the cap device in linux to authenticate yourself as a user - have init setuid to that user. - figure out how to make linux work with no root user Anything else is likely to be not that interesting. ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich @ 2011-07-03 21:38 ` andrew zerger 2011-07-03 21:39 ` andrew zerger 2011-07-03 21:51 ` andrey mirtchovski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: andrew zerger @ 2011-07-03 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --] More info for people looking from the same vantage point as me.. This document is something I am about to read.. (I wasn't sure what a cap device in linux was, this was the most relevant google result.) http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34433.pdf -- ⎼⎺⎺├@┼␊├├≤-␍⎼␊▒␍:/⎺└␊/⎼⎺# [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 615 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 21:38 ` andrew zerger @ 2011-07-03 21:39 ` andrew zerger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: andrew zerger @ 2011-07-03 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 669 bytes --] Its a pdf about plan9 authentication in linux by one Ashwin Ganti, sorry for the double post. On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, andrew zerger <rhoyerboat@gmail.com> wrote: > More info for people looking from the same vantage point as me.. > > This document is something I am about to read.. (I wasn't sure what a cap > device in linux was, this was the most relevant google result.) > > > http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34433.pdf > > > -- > ⎼⎺⎺├@┼␊├├≤-␍⎼␊▒␍:/⎺└␊/⎼⎺# > > > -- ⎼⎺⎺├@┼␊├├≤-␍⎼␊▒␍:/⎺└␊/⎼⎺# [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1149 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich 2011-07-03 21:38 ` andrew zerger @ 2011-07-03 21:51 ` andrey mirtchovski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2011-07-03 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs as a person who has spent the last three years exclusively in user-level filesystems on Linux, I can safely say this -- my biggest problem during that time has been the root user. from dealing with programs which allow only root-level access (xen tools) to dealing with programs who explicitly disallow root (PBS/torque) much more of my time has been spent twiddling with permissions, sudo config scripts and everything else involving root than actually writing the synthetic user-level file system and getting it running. it appears that every cluster of programs used to do anything systems-y in Linux has a special view of uid 0 -- some revere it, others fear it, but no two treat it the same way. only one piece of software said "chgrp my device file to whoever you want to use it and be free". it felt very Plan9-ey. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 21:08 ` andrey mirtchovski 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich @ 2011-07-17 16:25 ` Nicolas Bercher 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Bercher @ 2011-07-17 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 03/07/2011 23:08, andrey mirtchovski wrote: >> they've changed everything else in unix, why hold so tightly to the clearly >> > unhelpful ideas? > because it's a cult. things don't make sense in cults. i encountered > the following quote the other day, which finally convinced me. OK, maybe this is about cult, but the first paper I read about Plan 9 mentioned that Plan 9 was born because it was too much complicated to fix Unix. So, I see Plan 9 as a fork in the whole Unix history. The rest of the *nix OSes are just pursuing their own ways with "old fashioned concepts" that are hard to remove, or maybe impossible. Nicolas PS: Andrey, I'm currently reading your master thesis. I feel the same pleasure reading it as reading Linus stuff, because it is well written. Linux is going his own way, with root and without private namaespaces, and still, I'm happy with that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c>]
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 [not found] ` <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c> @ 2011-07-03 11:55 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 12:32 ` Connor Lane Smith [not found] ` <CAMdzYRowH+Y3UA4iyPy+4dP-cE064A6XZXvTbB1M-jBypu_ORw@mail.gmail.c> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > I know bloated GNU projects are generally frowned upon, but I think > it's quite interesting that GNOME's GVFS allows, afaict, per-process > synthetic filesystems. But clearly that's extremely ugly compared to > Plan 9. and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome processes. i can give "file" references to gnome programs like http://example.com to a gnome proc. cat(1) won't accept the same reference. i don't know how the underpinings work, but i would imagine ls -l http://example.com would result in some hilarity. the worst bit is there's no sense of a global name space. http:// feels all vms-ey. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 11:55 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 12:32 ` Connor Lane Smith [not found] ` <CAMdzYRowH+Y3UA4iyPy+4dP-cE064A6XZXvTbB1M-jBypu_ORw@mail.gmail.c> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Connor Lane Smith @ 2011-07-03 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On 3 July 2011 12:55, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome > processes. i can give "file" references to gnome programs like http://example.com > to a gnome proc. cat(1) won't accept the same reference. Well yes, it would only make sense in an OS which only uses GIO, rather than standard Unix IO. cls ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAMdzYRowH+Y3UA4iyPy+4dP-cE064A6XZXvTbB1M-jBypu_ORw@mail.gmail.c>]
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 [not found] ` <CAMdzYRowH+Y3UA4iyPy+4dP-cE064A6XZXvTbB1M-jBypu_ORw@mail.gmail.c> @ 2011-07-03 12:51 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 13:13 ` Connor Lane Smith 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Sun Jul 3 08:34:26 EDT 2011, cls@lubutu.com wrote: > On 3 July 2011 12:55, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > > and yet there's a key difference. this is a private joke amongst gnome > > processes. i can give "file" references to gnome programs like http://example.com > > to a gnome proc. cat(1) won't accept the same reference. > > Well yes, it would only make sense in an OS which only uses GIO, > rather than standard Unix IO. what i was trying to say is that even in that case, i think gio is a weak model. it goes back to the vms/dos days where the method of access becomes part of the name. that is, i need to know if it's accessed via http or ftp or local to access a file. further, i can't have a path like /usr/quanstro/remote/http://my.other.site/some/path. i have to attach devices at the root. and i'm pretty sure i can't modify what's accessable without recompiling everything that uses the gnome vfs stuff. in short, it's more a clumsy hack than an i/o model. plan 9 has better answers in all three cases, despite being much older. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-03 12:51 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-07-03 13:13 ` Connor Lane Smith 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Connor Lane Smith @ 2011-07-03 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On 3 July 2011 13:51, erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com> wrote: > what i was trying to say is that even in that case, i think gio is a weak > model. it goes back to the vms/dos days where the method of access > becomes part of the name. that is, i need to know if it's accessed via > http or ftp or local to access a file. further, i can't have a path like > /usr/quanstro/remote/http://my.other.site/some/path. i have to attach > devices at the root. Yeah, that's true. Still, that's not *too* different from Plan 9 binding: you have to know the protocol in order to mount a drive, after all. I know very little about GVFS, admittedly, but it would make sense if you *could* run the equivalent to Plan 9's bind(), so you'd say, % bind http://example.net/some/path ~/example That's pretty much the same as running the appropriate fileserver and then binding the result, only GVFS works out what daemon you need. > and i'm pretty sure i can't modify what's accessable > without recompiling everything that uses the gnome vfs stuff. I think you can add more filesystems without recompiling anything, though I don't know for sure. I think it works quite well conceptually, though I'm really not a fan of linking everything into DBus and so on. Still, in terms of bringing Plan 9 to a "wider audience", GNOME might be a way. Of course, it would be rather a lot nicer if Linux could just work out its issues and stop relying on CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but that doesn't seem likely. On the topic of Plan 9, I was thinking an interesting fileserver would be one which, if you access '/uri/http:/example.net', looks up in a table the fileserver required for 'http:', and hands the request over automatically. That way you get the same as GVFS, only without the DBus snafu. I don't know if anyone's already done that. Thanks, cls ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-02 16:15 [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Robert Seaton 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd 2011-07-02 16:29 ` dexen deVries @ 2011-07-04 6:44 ` Yaroslav 2011-07-04 14:59 ` Robert Seaton 2 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Yaroslav @ 2011-07-04 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting 2011/7/2 Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu>: > Hello, 9fans! > ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-04 6:44 ` Yaroslav @ 2011-07-04 14:59 ` Robert Seaton 2011-07-16 10:52 ` simon softnet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Robert Seaton @ 2011-07-04 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on Linux. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-04 14:59 ` Robert Seaton @ 2011-07-16 10:52 ` simon softnet 2011-07-16 19:12 ` David Leimbach 2011-07-18 9:04 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: simon softnet @ 2011-07-16 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --] Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any way ... Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel user-space paradigms. Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? Simon On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> wrote: > > one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > Linux. :) > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 989 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 10:52 ` simon softnet @ 2011-07-16 19:12 ` David Leimbach 2011-07-16 19:17 ` simon softnet 2011-07-18 9:04 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2011-07-16 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist. On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any way ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel user-space paradigms.Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? > > Simon > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> wrote: > >> one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > Linux. :) > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 19:12 ` David Leimbach @ 2011-07-16 19:17 ` simon softnet 2011-07-16 19:32 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: simon softnet @ 2011-07-16 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --] Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9 features instead of with pure plan 9 Simon On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts > Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist. > > On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any > way ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel > user-space paradigms.Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? > > > > Simon > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> > wrote: > > > >> one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of > > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > > Linux. :) > > > > > > > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1613 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 19:17 ` simon softnet @ 2011-07-16 19:32 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 2011-07-16 21:10 ` simon softnet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Ethan Grammatikidis @ 2011-07-16 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:17:14 +0200 simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9 > features > instead of with pure plan 9 Most of us have to anyway. For now... > > Simon > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts > > Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist. > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any > > way ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel > > user-space paradigms.Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > >> one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > > > > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of > > > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > > > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > > > Linux. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 19:32 ` Ethan Grammatikidis @ 2011-07-16 21:10 ` simon softnet 2011-07-17 9:38 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: simon softnet @ 2011-07-16 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --] If it wasn't for this cancerous web applications ordeal, I would be happy with OpenBSD & rio, and maybe with pure Plan 9 in the future .. Simon On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:17:14 +0200 > simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9 > > features > > instead of with pure plan 9 > > Most of us have to anyway. > > For now... > > > > > Simon > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts > > > Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist. > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in > any > > > way ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel > > > user-space paradigms.Why do they have to be sucked into the linux > world? > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > > > > > > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much > of > > > > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > > > > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > > > > Linux. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2509 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 21:10 ` simon softnet @ 2011-07-17 9:38 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: Ethan Grammatikidis @ 2011-07-17 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 23:10:24 +0200 simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > If it wasn't for this cancerous web applications ordeal, I would be happy > with OpenBSD & rio, > and maybe with pure Plan 9 in the future .. You'd be missing the best of Plan 9. Actually, I really feel we already have Plan 9 merged into Linux and (iirc) OpenBSD exactly as far as it needs to be, in the form of the frequently but underservedly ignored 9vx. I've always thought p9p's plumber could help 9vx communicate with the host system, but never actually tried it. > > Simon > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:17:14 +0200 > > simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Because it's more likely that users will settle with linux+some plan 9 > > > features > > > instead of with pure plan 9 > > > > Most of us have to anyway. > > > > For now... > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't see why anyone combining ideas from Plan 9 into Linux hurts > > > > Plan 9 as long as Plan 9 continues to exist. > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2011, simon softnet <ph.softnet@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in > > any > > > > way ...Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel > > > > user-space paradigms.Why do they have to be sucked into the linux > > world? > > > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > > > > > > > > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much > > of > > > > > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > > > > > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > > > > > Linux. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-16 10:52 ` simon softnet 2011-07-16 19:12 ` David Leimbach @ 2011-07-18 9:04 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2011-07-18 9:30 ` dexen deVries 1 sibling, 1 reply; 43+ messages in thread From: Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2011-07-18 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 07/16/2011 04:23 PM, simon softnet wrote: > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any > way ... > Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel user-space > paradigms. > Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? I think, we can govern a revolution, yet can't stop an evolution; try finding how and, or why Coherent (operating system), Minix and then GNU/Linux were created. IMHO, we need to know and, or learn how to pull a mob or engage masses into a development, launch, marketing, feedback and rectification process life cycle of a product. See also, comp.os.linux.misc - Re: Choosing a distro http://bit.ly/hEq1Z > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Robert Seaton <seatonr@dupage.edu > <mailto:seatonr@dupage.edu>> wrote: > > > one might find http://www.glendix.org/ project interesting > > The project actually already uses a glendix patched kernel and much of > my upcoming work will be focused on porting more of Plan 9's syscalls > to the Linux kernel so that more native Plan 9 apps can be run on > Linux. :) -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman (http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 2011-07-18 9:04 ` Balwinder S Dheeman @ 2011-07-18 9:30 ` dexen deVries 0 siblings, 0 replies; 43+ messages in thread From: dexen deVries @ 2011-07-18 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Monday 18 of July 2011 11:04:51 Balwinder S Dheeman wrote: > On 07/16/2011 04:23 PM, simon softnet wrote: > > Please, don't let plan 9 and linux be interrelated in the future in any > > way ... > > Future plan 9 users have the opportunity to experience novel user-space > > paradigms. > > Why do they have to be sucked into the linux world? +1 > I think, we can govern a revolution, yet can't stop an evolution; try > finding how and, or why Coherent (operating system), Minix and then > GNU/Linux were created. > > IMHO, we need to know and, or learn how to pull a mob or engage masses > into a development, launch, marketing, feedback and rectification > process life cycle of a product. noob-friendly implies hacker-unfriendly. or at least boring. no formal proof available, but enough of anecdotes is close to data. IMHO linux tries to appeal to wide audience to force hardware vendors to release drivers or specs, and software vendors to ensure interoperability. we may want to be able to piggy-back plan9 kernel on linux kernel -- because linux has drivers for most chips out there. just have userspace go through plan 9 kernel all the time. once that's done, we don't need to cater to joe public /that/ much. -- dexen deVries [[[↓][→]]] For example, if the first thing in the file is: <?kzy irefvba="1.0" rapbqvat="ebg13"?> an XML parser will recognize that the document is stored in the traditional ROT13 encoding. (( Joe English, http://www.flightlab.com/~joe/sgml/faq-not.txt )) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 43+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-19 7:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 43+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-07-02 16:15 [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Robert Seaton 2011-07-02 16:23 ` Jacob Todd 2011-07-17 12:37 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-17 13:54 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-18 8:32 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-18 17:14 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-19 7:50 ` Eugene Gorodinsky 2011-07-02 16:29 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 17:24 ` Jack Johnson 2011-07-02 17:34 ` [9fans] To p9 or not to p9? (was: novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9) dexen deVries 2011-07-02 18:23 ` [9fans] novel userspace paradigms introduced by plan 9 Eli Cohen 2011-07-02 18:36 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-02 23:10 ` simon softnet 2011-07-02 23:31 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-07-03 8:55 ` simon softnet 2011-07-03 11:06 ` Connor Lane Smith 2011-07-03 14:38 ` Iruatã Souza 2011-07-03 22:05 ` Charles Forsyth 2011-07-03 17:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 2011-07-03 18:10 ` dexen deVries 2011-07-03 20:44 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 20:53 ` Lyndon Nerenberg 2011-07-03 20:57 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 21:08 ` andrey mirtchovski 2011-07-03 21:29 ` ron minnich 2011-07-03 21:38 ` andrew zerger 2011-07-03 21:39 ` andrew zerger 2011-07-03 21:51 ` andrey mirtchovski 2011-07-17 16:25 ` Nicolas Bercher [not found] ` <CAMdzYRr4_2JdEXaZ8cg=_9CJYzZr63HtEAtaG6x8WXGrPtp_DQ@mail.gmail.c> 2011-07-03 11:55 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 12:32 ` Connor Lane Smith [not found] ` <CAMdzYRowH+Y3UA4iyPy+4dP-cE064A6XZXvTbB1M-jBypu_ORw@mail.gmail.c> 2011-07-03 12:51 ` erik quanstrom 2011-07-03 13:13 ` Connor Lane Smith 2011-07-04 6:44 ` Yaroslav 2011-07-04 14:59 ` Robert Seaton 2011-07-16 10:52 ` simon softnet 2011-07-16 19:12 ` David Leimbach 2011-07-16 19:17 ` simon softnet 2011-07-16 19:32 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 2011-07-16 21:10 ` simon softnet 2011-07-17 9:38 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 2011-07-18 9:04 ` Balwinder S Dheeman 2011-07-18 9:30 ` dexen deVries
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).