[9fans] Re:

[9fans] Re:

[Owner-]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 116 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: usomeorofd.gif --]
[-- Type: image/gif, Size: 1074 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Cat.zip"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Cat.zip"

[-- Attachment #3.2: Cat.zip.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 0 bytes --]

[9fans] Re:

[Vester Thacker]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:52:33 +0100, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
>
> I got a copy on ebay (though I have never seen another one).
> maybe somone will offer you one "off list".

Heh, if I could only be that lucky. :-)   

--Vester

[9fans] Re:

[Paul.clark]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 110 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: kgodvystyd.bmp --]
[-- Type: image/bmp, Size: 2286 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 367 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="New_MP3_Player.zip"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="New_MP3_Player.zip"

[-- Attachment #3.2: New_MP3_Player.zip.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 0 bytes --]

[9fans] Re:

[Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 69 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: qkegwohtao.bmp --]
[-- Type: image/bmp, Size: 4462 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Cool_MP3.zip"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Cool_MP3.zip"

[-- Attachment #3.2: Cool_MP3.zip.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 0 bytes --]

[9fans] Re:

[Kma]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 67 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: unebggqvih.bmp --]
[-- Type: image/bmp, Size: 3594 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Garry.zip"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Garry.zip"

[-- Attachment #3.2: Garry.zip.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 0 bytes --]

[9fans] Re:

[Eric Dorman]

From: <arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 2:07 AM


> >Remake the fileserver kernel with 'chatty' defined as non-zero in
> >dosfs.c and let's take a look at the output plus a hex dump of
> >block 0 of the floppy.
> The result is:
> getclust0 @ 0
> getclust seek addr 0
> getclust read addr 0
> can't read block
> can't read boot block
> panic: can't init dos dosfs on fd.
[xx]
Kenji Arisawa
> E-mail: arisawa@aichi-u.ac.jp

curiouser.  my usual diagnostic is not having the floppy appear
at all.  sounds like time to get back into that trench.

good luck sir!
--eric

Re: [9fans] Re:

[presotto]

	Btw, is plan9.bell-labs.com going to be the official plan9 sit, ...

We're still feeling our way through doing disributions etc.  It
may be a while before we've decided how to do this long term.
Until thenm, we'll continue to assemble and redistribute changes.

[9fans] Re:

[Andrey Mirtchovski]

You mean:
    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/ureg.html

Btw, is plan9.bell-labs.com going to be the official plan9 sit, or is
there another domain planned?

Andrey

presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> There's now a pointer to updates and new full packages in
>
>         http://plan9.plan9.com/plan9dist/ureg.html
>

[9fans] Re:

[Elliott]

> Hmm. kernel hacks, maybe, but surely there wasn't any restriction on
> distributing brand new applications, or those ported to Plan 9?

no, of course not, but who's going to choose to write for Plan 9 rather
than Linux? my lwm window manager for X, for example, was originally my
modified version of 8.5 while i was at York. it didn't seem worth making
diffs for that, because no-one would have used it. people i knew would
run it from my bin, but that was it. when i wrote lwm, those same people
would ask if they could have the source so they could use it at home.

my point was about "the enticement of having users". it's a lot nicer to
know that someone other than just you is using your programs. [unless
it's paid programming, in which case users are a pain in the bum ;-)]

-- 
http://users.ch.genedata.com/~enh/

[9fans] Re:

[steve_kilbane]

On 21/09/98 10:43:54 Elliott Hughes  wrote:

> and then there's the catch-22: the enticement of having users. no-one
likes to  write
> software to push it to the back of their disc to rot (though i do wonder
sometimes),
> and the one place where you can be sure of users is the free world. if
you can't
> give your code away for free to run on a free platform, you're going to
have  fewer
> users than if you could.

Hmm. kernel hacks, maybe, but surely there wasn't any restriction on
distributing brand new applications, or those ported to Plan 9?

steve