I just saw that Greg KH considered dropping the p9auth in 2.6.33 if nobody was interested in it. I do not know how well this one fits with the rest that Glendix tries to do and whether it provides some functionality needed by the glendix project...
On 22 Juli, 21:27, "J. R. Mauro" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 22, 2009, at 15:23, staalmannen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is there a repo for /net with an RSS feed? I already subscribe to the > > glendix Hg repo and the Private Namespaces repo to see how you guys > > are doing :) > > /net is done in the main glendox repo. There just haven't been any > recent commits. We're all really busy. > > > > > I really wish I knew how to code and stuff... > > Visit the local bookstore. > > > > > A completely unrelated (and probably herretic) question: does Wine > > compile on APE + the plan9 ported X? If it did people who want to be > > "bare metal" plan9 users could still enjoy a browser etc :P. > > APE is probably nowhere near what wine needs. There is a Linux > emulator for plan9 that people run browsers in. I would personally go > this route but plan 9 won't support half the hardware on my laptop. > > > > > On 20 Juli, 17:02, "J. R. Mauro" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jul 20, 2009, at 10:51, Sam Fuqua <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> I'm sorry if this has already been answered, but how close are we to > >>> a /net implementation for Linux? > > >> Some of the basic structure is there for tcp. Actually generating new > >> connections is not started yet. 10 percent maybe? > > >>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM, J. R. Mauro <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > >>> I somehow don't see Aaron moving KDE to /dev/draw. I also really > >>> don't > >>> see the benefit of crap like dbus and hal. Cross polination will be > >>> nice, but it will also suck. Don't get your hopes up about anything > >>> migrating. The only tasty thing people might want us /net > > >>> On Jul 20, 2009, at 9:45, Jens Staal <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> I think you understood me correctly :) > > >>>> The more I think about it the smarter it seems - a very elegant > >>> way to > >>>> break a catch 22 where "good enough" legacy blocks better > >>> solutions - > >>>> and with more applications and tools available on top of the > >>>> alternative paradigm, more people will be ready to work on it. > > >>>> I think this definitely can be the beginning of something big if > >>>> things really take off. > > >>>> 2009/7/20, Rahul Murmuria <[email protected]>: > > >>>>> Hi staalmannen, > > >>>>> You are just beginning to realize what Glendix's motive is. One of > >>>>> our > >>>>> strongest wishes is that regular Linux-based apps like KDE and GCC > >>>>> start using the Plan 9 features we add to Linux in the future. > >>>>> Like > >>>>> network based apps should use a /net virtual filesystem instead of > >>>>> the > >>>>> socket ioctl calls. Basically do things "the Plan 9 way", while > >>>>> staying in the Linux world. So, as a corollary, If a Linux apps > >>> ends > >>>>> up using exclusively Plan 9-like features, then its executable > >>> should > >>>>> work out-of-the-box in Plan 9. Like KDE should start using /dev/ > >>> draw > >>>>> instead of X11. > > >>>>> This will lead to what you just described. Others are welcome to > >>>>> correct me, if I have failed to see your point. > > >>>>> Have fun! > > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM, staalmannen<[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> I just thought of something else where Glendix actually provides > >>>>>> additional value compared to all other user-space or virtualized > >>>>>> plan9 > >>>>>> implementations (like Inferno, 9vx, 9ports etc). In contrast to > >>>>>> those > >>>>>> - glendix might be used for incremental porting of complex apps > >>> with > >>>>>> lots of dependencies not filled by native plan9. > > >>>>>> The thing I was thinking of (which I do not know if it is at all > >>>>>> feasible or just completely stupid) is for example porting of KDE > >>>>>> (which gives a full productivity suite and is made to be > >>> portable). > >>>>>> Several things are not possible to even start with in native > >>>>>> Plan9 > >>>>>> (for example, no c++ capable native compiler - I have a gut > >>> feeling > >>>>>> that LLVM/clang may be more portable than GCC since the only > >>> problem > >>>>>> officially recognized by LLVM for porting to plan9 is its > >>>>>> dependencies > >>>>>> of a Bourne shell - and if rc could be replacing that...). > >>>>>> The nice thing is ofcourse that the whole porting in an hybrid > >>>>>> environment could give working semi-ported intermediates that > >>> run on > >>>>>> glendix but not on plan9 or GNU (a "kwin" on rio, a plan9-type > >>>>>> Hal > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> Dbus etc, which "downstream" (towards the kernel) talk Plan9 and > >>>>>> "upstream" (towards applications) have the usual interface of the > >>>>>> original components) - sort of the way glendix is built right > >>> now - > >>>>>> incremental improvements where each improvement has a potential > >>> use > >>>>>> even before full Plan9 compatibility is achieved. > > >>>>>> Well.... I do not know if I am just rambling, but I thought this > >>>>>> was a > >>>>>> pretty interesting and unique advantage of Glendix compared to > >>> other > >>>>>> ways of running Plan9. > > >>>>>> On May 28, 4:56 pm, "J.R. Mauro" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, staalmannen > >>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> OK thanks for that explanation (and it was probably not a > >>>>>>>> commit > >>>>>>>> - I > >>>>>>>> might have misinterpreted it, as I said before I am just a > >>>>>>>> curious > >>>>>>>> layman so those things happen). The "ideological" resistance > >>> as I > >>>>>>>> interpreted it was mostly a comment about that plan9 > >>> compatibility > >>>>>>>> should not be a purpose on its own and that it (plan9) had an > >>>>>>>> "ugly > >>>>>>>> interface". > > >>>>>>> I don't remember anyone saying Plan 9 was ugly. Just that > >>> exposing > >>>>>>> jiffies to userspace was dumb. Which, maybe it is. Like I said, > >>>>>>> those > >>>>>>> last two fields can be whatever, so changing it isn't a big > >>>>>>> deal. > >>>>>>> And > >>>>>>> IIRC, Chris did change it. > > >>>>>>>> Sorry for all the questions - feel free to tell me that I am > >>>>>>>> annoying > >>>>>>>> if you get bothered by them ;) > > >>>>>>>> On a completely different track - what would you feel would be > >>> the > >>>>>>>> "killer feature" to get into mainline from glendix? Would it > >>> be / > >>>>>>>> net > >>>>>>>> or something else? Some stuff like /proc has been widely > >>>>>>>> accepted so > >>>>>>>> why do you think that other useful things derived from the > >>>>>>>> Plan9 > >>>>>>>> design concept have not been integrated previously? > > >>>>>>> If by 'killer' you mean absolute fatality, then full Plan 9 > >>>>>>> support. > >>>>>>> In the meantime, smaller goals like /net, improving /proc, true > >>>>>>> rio on > >>>>>>> top of /dev/draw, etc. will be very nice milestones. > > >>>>>>>> On 28 Maj, 15:24, "J.R. Mauro" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM, staalmannen > >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> I saw a kernel commit by you for /dev/time where the feedback > >>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>> it could possibly be added as a /staging/plan9 directory in > >>> the > > >>>>>>>>> Wait, a commit? I didn't know /dev/time made it anywhere (sad > >>>>>>>>> face)... > > >>>>>>>>> I don't want to abuse staging. It's already a controversy, and > >>>>>>>>> straining it by falling back on Greg to always say yes is a > >>>>>>>>> bad > >>>>>>>>> idea. > >>>>>>>>> FWICS, things in staging get less feedback than things put > >>> out on > >>>>>>>>> LKML. The thing is that if no one cares, these little patches > >>>>>>>>> won't > >>>>>>>>> get picked up. I don't think that shoehorning them into > >>>>>>>>> staging > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> good. > > >>>>>>>>> Glendix will probably wind up having to host these stray > >>>>>>>>> patches, and > >>>>>>>>> maybe someday we'll have an arsenal of examples of us getting > >>>>>>>>> Plan 9 > >>>>>>>>> code into Linux. Yes, in some ways, Linux is a popularity > >>>>>>>>> contest. But > >>>>>>>>> it stems from people trusting others to not screw things up. > > >>>>>>>>>> mainline, but that you were afraid of flamewars. In a later > >>>>>>>>>> reply > >>>>>>>>>> someone else questioned the plan9 compatibility of the > >>> format of > >>>>>>>>>> /dev/ > >>>>>>>>>> time (and not the design as such). > > >>>>>>>>> The discussion about the format was not ideological, it was > >>>>>>>>> logical. > >>>>>>>>> /dev/time exposed jiffies, which isn't really something > >>> userspace > >>>>>>>>> should necessarily see. Plan 9's man pages state that the > >>>>>>>>> latter 2 > >>>>>>>>> fields are implementation-defined. So the first 2 fields are > >>>>>>>>> ok, and > >>>>>>>>> all that really matter. That and the formatting, which I > >>>>>>>>> patched for > >>>>>>>>> Chris. > > >>>>>>>>> Also, the CUSE system will be out shortly, and something as > >>>>>>>>> simple and > >>>>>>>>> non-performance-intensive as /dev/time will probably want to > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>> in userspace. > > >>>>>>>>>> Do you often experience such "ideological" resistance to > >>>>>>>>>> improving > >>>>>>>>>> linux with plan9 functionality? > > >>>>>>>>> I experience resistance to improving Linux with Linux > >>>>>>>>> functionality. > > >>>>>>>>>> On 27 Maj, 19:23, "J.R. Mauro" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:16 PM, staalmannen > >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like very realistic hopes I would say (extending > >>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux ecosystem with plan9 features). I wish you all > >>> luck > >>>>>>>>>>>> with the > >>>>>>>>>>>> project! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose this also means that there might be a gradual > >>> cross- > >>>>>>>>>>>> polination where some parts actually may get wide > >>>>>>>>>>>> acceptance > >>>>>>>>>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>>>> before the complete port of plan9 is complete? > >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if /net would be accepted in the mainline > > ... > > läs mer » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/glendix?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
