Re: [9fans] Virtual Box 5.1 and Plan 9
I run 9front in virtualbox, and, while I totally agree that its a waste of time to test it because they *always* break something in vbox, you're pretty safe if you stay on the 4.3 series and 5.0 series (on my end: 4.3 on freebsd is tested and 5.0 on windows is tested). I know you don't get the latest and greatest features, but it works and you can get your work done which is more important than features. If you want to try fixing things, I'm sure the patches would be accepted, but I don't think you should unless you have *very* good reasons to because of how terrible virtualbox is. -- Veety
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
I'd use whichever version is the latest free one. VS2015 community edition is the one I use, but MS are still pretty good about backward compatibility, so any previous version should do. > On 28/07/2016, at 5:09 PM, Joseph Stewart wrote: > > Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use? > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo wrote: >> Hey Chris >> >> Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used >> mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to the >> native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. >> >> I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft >> development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority >> taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd >> party tools and then being told how stupid they are. >> > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: >> > >> > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. >> > >> > Chris >> > >> >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: >> >> >> >> What the subject line says. >> >> >> >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the >> >> guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p >> >> that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly >> >> the command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to >> >> build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and >> >> learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use >> >> syntax highlighting))) >> >> >> >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be >> >> dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp >> >> for another. >> >> >> >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific >> >> stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? >> >> >> >> Go in peace >> >> James V Choate XXXVI >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use? On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo wrote: > Hey Chris > > Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used > mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to > the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. > > I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like > Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a > minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks > installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > > > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. > > > > Chris > > > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: > >> > >> What the subject line says. > >> > >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the > guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p > that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the > command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build > under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to > eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax > highlighting))) > >> > >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be > dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp > for another. > >> > >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the > Unix-specific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? > >> > >> Go in peace > >> James V Choate XXXVI > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Hey Chris Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. > > Chris > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: >> >> What the subject line says. >> >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys >> who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d >> like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command >> line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under >> Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew >> IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) >> >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be >> dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for >> another. >> >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific >> stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? >> >> Go in peace >> James V Choate XXXVI >> >> >> > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. Chris > On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: > > What the subject line says. > > This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys > who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d > like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command > line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under > Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew > IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) > > But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be > dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for > another. > > So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific > stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? > > Go in peace > James V Choate XXXVI > > >
[9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
What the subject line says. This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for another. So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? Go in peace James V Choate XXXVI
Re: [9fans] Virtual Box 5.1 and Plan 9
dont use vbox. each new vbox version breaks something. when i tried to update to the latest one on windows 7 vbox didnt start anymore after the installation. in the trash it goes. i will not test 9front under vbox anymore and not support it. use vmware or kvm/qemu. -- cinap
[9fans] A write-up about an old Plan 9 vulnerability
http://blog.securitymouse.com/2016/07/this-old-vulnerability-1-plan-9-devenv.html
[9fans] test
test
[9fans] Virtual Box 5.1 and Plan 9
I've been using plan 9 on Virtual Box 5.0.x for a while and it's been running fine. However the latest update to 5.1 seems not to work. I want to try and sort this out but I need a bit of help on figuring out what's going during boot. On both Labs and 9front the booting just hangs somewhere after login (see http://i.imgur.com/6hXLbbq.png) presumably while running some rc scripts. On 9front I was running the most recent installer CD. Is there anyway to make this more verbose so I can tell what's going on? Thanks. Peter
Re: [9fans] 9pi image
Richard Miller <9fans hamnavoe.com> writes: > > At long last the SDcard image in /n/sources/contrib/miller/9pi.img.gz > is up to date. Besides having support for Raspberry Pi 3 and Zero, it > is now much more robust running on multiple cores, and includes new > interfaces for GPIO, SPI and I2C devices thanks to Brian Stuart and > Vita Nuova. > > As well as the bcm-specific kernel changes (which can also be found in > /n/sources/contrib/miller/9/bcm), I've applied a few essential fixes > from /n/sources/patch: > > armv7-atomic > libsec-x509-sha256rsa > maybe/usb-short-desc > pread-offset > proc-smp-fixes > ramfs-fixes > segment-overlap > usbether-rpi > usbserial-ftdi-writelen > > Richard, Do you have any plans to support the Pine64? It would be great to have Plan9 on the Pine64. Thanks, Tony
