Re: [9fans] GSoC 2021 project ideas
Quoth Jack Johnson : > Anyone know if this project went anywhere? > > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~412/lectures/L05_Purge_Proposal.pdf > > A Hellaphone revisit. Maybe e-mail davide+reception...@cs.cmu.edu , since it's one of his lectures? -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T39aec8f3f9d8503d-Me1c1e90dfdbc0f003da7cc1f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
Quoth k...@a-b.xyz: > > I'd like to see people communicate and exchange ideas and/or code more > effectively but this will always remain in the hands of individuals > who decide how to socialise and what to work on. > I try to keep an eye open, and integrate patches that make sense. I've also committed patches when others did the same (eg, plan9front acme has gotten many of the changes from plan9port, though not all) -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M5f5900afb2db59d9e19a9294 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
It is Russ Cox's code search suite: https://github.com/google/codesearch On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 5:02 AM wrote: > Quoth un...@cpan.org: > > Quoth Maurizio Boriani : > > > thanks a lot! But... what's csearch? > > > > Possibly > https://manpages.debian.org/testing/codesearch/csearch.1.en.html > > Igonre--the other post, mentioning the go package is more likely. > -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-Meb10a04b846212b33436bd54 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
My e-mail client decided to mark this thread as read. I am glad it did. -- Aram Hăvărneanu -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M19d5cd1a3c6215f93b235b39 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
Quoth un...@cpan.org: > Quoth Maurizio Boriani : > > thanks a lot! But... what's csearch? > > Possibly https://manpages.debian.org/testing/codesearch/csearch.1.en.html Igonre--the other post, mentioning the go package is more likely. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M59304d85ee713b1f0c1851b6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: Git & Conventional Browsers (Was Re: [9fans] Software philosophy)
Quoth un...@cpan.org: > Do you mean working on git repos that > use symbolic links Those also work on git9, though modifying the symlinks is not allowed. Symlinks are treated as copies. See the netsurf port for an example of this in practice. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T4f2bf7206a55a388-M804b00fa5d8931c6401a65b9 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
Quoth Maurizio Boriani :
>
> Rob Pike writes:
>
> > % cat bin/cf
> > #!/bin/sh
> >
> > csearch -n -f '\.go$' '^func (\([^)]+\) )?'$1'\('
>
> thanks a lot! But... what's csearch?
Possibly https://manpages.debian.org/testing/codesearch/csearch.1.en.html
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M37ca51e4b6b1b0b862ecebb4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Git & Conventional Browsers (Was Re: [9fans] Software philosophy)
Quoth Lucio De Re : > A transparent history of decisions in this matter would prevent losing > any interesting proposals - yes, we need better than Git, but Git is > painfully "enough" to start with, even if as I get more familiar with > Git I'm starting to believe, hopefully wrongly, that Plan 9 may have > to bend towards supporting symbolic links to deal with it if it is > going to be a long run - and will raise a chuckle or two when future > archeologists come across it. I doubt they'll be able to do any more > than raise eyebrows when they try that with Linux. Ori has developed git9--which I think is compatible with 9legacy when a certain patch is applied (I think it's related to rc). I don't understand what you mean by it would require supporting symbolic links in order to deal with it (git). Do you mean working on git repos that use symbolic links, not the many git repos that already exist for Plan 9-ish software? > One last, not quite related matter: Plan 9 seems limited never to > provide a conventional browsing experience for its audience. What does > that actually say about Plan 9's future? Opossum and netsurf are two browsers on Plan 9 that can provide a conventional browsing experience, from what I've seen. They're not nearly as far along and polished as Chrome/Firefox, but it's a start. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T4f2bf7206a55a388-Mded82ec1613ca89af7a5598b Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
some of it for me is just nostalgia. there was always someone talking about "the world these days" though, I have to admit. ignorance sucks too but noticing anything is excruciatingly painful! I also had a vested interest in submitting patches "upstream" to see what I could learn from trying to do it. I didn't get very far with it and started to feel like I was just making a mess. I often feel that way with my coding. if anyone understood my feelings of being misunderstood, not that I ever put any effort into knowing who any of you are, it did seem boomers made all this. I'm on the fence about the moon thing though, I don't see any particular reason we should believe in any lights in the night sky or other ridiculousness. On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 4:47 AM hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have beef with the One Plan 9 idea. Or at least the all people I have > > talked to about this topic. > > personally i have no beef with it. i'd be happy for everybody to > upgrade to 9front. > it's all open-source for a reason, would be a shame if nobody believes > in their own fork... -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Me9f5351c0353c26fe7ae4eea Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
I am guessing:
https://github.com/google/codesearch/blob/master/cmd/csearch/csearch.go
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 13:44 Maurizio Boriani wrote:
>
> Rob Pike writes:
>
> > % cat bin/cf
> > #!/bin/sh
> >
> > csearch -n -f '\.go$' '^func (\([^)]+\) )?'$1'\('
>
> thanks a lot! But... what's csearch?
>
> best,
>
> --
> Maurizio Boriani
> GPG key: 0xCC0FBF8F
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M7158507c2960444d94482c79
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
> We have beef with the One Plan 9 idea. Or at least the all people I have > talked to about this topic. personally i have no beef with it. i'd be happy for everybody to upgrade to 9front. it's all open-source for a reason, would be a shame if nobody believes in their own fork... -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mc29ad0e3a0dda2fc348d6dde Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
Rob Pike writes:
> % cat bin/cf
> #!/bin/sh
>
> csearch -n -f '\.go$' '^func (\([^)]+\) )?'$1'\('
thanks a lot! But... what's csearch?
best,
--
Maurizio Boriani
GPG key: 0xCC0FBF8F
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M341eca52c04374b097f4693b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
19.08.2021 12:56:02 k...@a-b.xyz: Quoth Lucio De Re : What seems to be harped upon by the vocal defenders of 9front, however, is this fictional idea that there is another community, let's call them "9legacy", that is attempting to subvert 9front's efforts to gain some kind of recognition in the bigger picture. The core 9front contributors and most everyone else who commented on this situation in 9front's super secret inner circles simply find it socially awkward that 9front isn't mentioned. Some may read more of the signal. Otherwise 9front folks couldn't care less about being recognized by a website. Nothing would change or improve if that happened. The only ones who objectively suffer in the current situation is newcomers who aren't properly informed by a website on the options they have if they want to run a "Plan 9". Basically this. P9f just doesn't mention 9front, and that should change imo, to better reflect the whole Plan 9 ecosystem. The same way p9p should be mentioned (or is it?) I personally don't see an issue with 9front and 9legacy continuing to be their own things. Different people have different ideas for what they want to make out of their Plan 9 and sometimes their ideas are simply incompatible. I'd like to see people communicate and exchange ideas and/or code more effectively but this will always remain in the hands of individuals who decide how to socialise and what to work on. 100% my opinion. Don't make a canonical 1P9, just let people explore their ideas. Like, even 9gridchan had it's own "fork", if you want to call it like that. sirjofri -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Md35909f62414b2dc634f2a8f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
Quoth Lucio De Re : > What seems to be harped upon by the vocal defenders of 9front, > however, is this fictional idea that there is another community, let's > call them "9legacy", that is attempting to subvert 9front's efforts to > gain some kind of recognition in the bigger picture. The core 9front contributors and most everyone else who commented on this situation in 9front's super secret inner circles simply find it socially awkward that 9front isn't mentioned. Some may read more of the signal. Otherwise 9front folks couldn't care less about being recognized by a website. Nothing would change or improve if that happened. The only ones who objectively suffer in the current situation is newcomers who aren't properly informed by a website on the options they have if they want to run a "Plan 9". I personally don't see an issue with 9front and 9legacy continuing to be their own things. Different people have different ideas for what they want to make out of their Plan 9 and sometimes their ideas are simply incompatible. I'd like to see people communicate and exchange ideas and/or code more effectively but this will always remain in the hands of individuals who decide how to socialise and what to work on. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mc4e94b26abc53ada87addb87 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
> On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:34 AM, Lucio De Re wrote: > > It is the pragmatic end of the Plan 9 spectrum, courtesy of Cinap who > clearly would be a Torvalds if Plan 9 had gained the traction of > Linux. > Oh please. You think Cinap is some sort of charismatic demogogue of 9front? Yeah… he’s not like that. In fact, 9front development is highly decentralized in authority and everyone seems to spot, review, critique, and gatekeep each other, rather than any person having a single final say. Perhaps I haven’t been with the community long enough to have seen any drag-out, knock-down fights that require a code-daddy [if any of those ever took place, I don’t know], but no, you really have a strange vision of what is going on at 9front. -pixelheresy -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Md9eb7bfcec9641d61110a0e1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
>> 3) the p9f website promotes links to the Plan 9 archive software (V1-V4), >> 9legacy as "Plan 9 with many useful patches", the RPi version and other >> Plan 9 resources. 9front is _never_ mentioned at all. It seems like they >> don't consider 9front as a Plan 9 system at all. >> > That is true and only P9F can address that issue. Which does rather > throw a spanner in Keith's complaints about me, because his claim is > that P9F want to assimilate and dominate 9front, based on a very thin > claim from me that I would be happier in a 1P9 universe. But let's not > ad hominem unnecessarily. Oh Lucio… I didn’t say that. You are either skimming to make arguments against what you *think* I said, or just being disingenuous to muddle my position. I didn’t say P9F was planning on it. You suggested it in your original response to Demitrius. I joked about blessing 9front as official, to point out how divisive and absurd it would be for a non-elected governing body to impose anything on an Open Source community and *then* pointed out how the P9F’s mission materials is about promoting and not regulating. I never said the P9F specifically wanted to reign in 9front as a recalcitrant child, rather that some community members here [you included, but a few other vocal ones] seem insistent that “good” features and fixes in 9front be demanded as patches from 9front devs to a project they do not participate in. Cinap and others have in fact made patches this here and there, but the idea the tribute is demanded for audience is absurd. Much like your motorcycle metaphor, there are ways to build in consistency and compatibility besides appeals to authority. > What seems to be harped upon by the vocal defenders of 9front, > however, is this fictional idea that there is another community, let's > call them "9legacy", that is attempting to subvert 9front's efforts to > gain some kind of recognition in the bigger picture. I know no one > whose preference, like mine, is to stick closer to the 9legacy release > of Plan 9, who in some way wants to reduce the value of 9front. Just > as OP points out, cooperation between David and Cinap and colleagues > has been cordial, if occasionally confrontational, for many, many > years. So Hiro and Kurt and others can be scratchy and no doubt so can > I, I don't think any of us have done any permanent damage to the 9fans > or the narrower 9front community. I think this may be a bit of a straw man argument, at least in terms of myself, peers I have spoken to in the 9front community, 9gridchan folks, etc. It is less 9front vs 9legacy. My position is more 9front & 9legacy coexisting vs a vocal minority who actively pepper messages with with rhetoric supporting a theoretical [forced] merger or culling of 9front in favor of a more authentic/pure version. As I said in my email to Eli, it is less a dichotomy between factions as a position where people in both 9front and 9legacy [and p9p users, etc. etc.] would happily see a positive mutual community of peers all congregating in 9fans living in cooperation and harmony vs. those who demand that there be some authority to legitimize one thing and force others to come to heel or leave. Making “P.S.” call outs to garner support for 1P9 (especially by means of appeal to external authority) forces me to speak up. Simple as that. The 9fans community knows me a bit less [since I mostly ready and enjoy discussions], but 9front/9grid/other OSS communities kind of know me as a positive, easy going, get along with everyone kind of guy. Call it “Papa Bear” instincts as a dad, or because I have been in the midst of other OSS drama over the years [and occasionally have seen what were tantamount to hostile, undemocratic takeovers of software projects], I kind of feel like I need to protect everyone’s little garden. > So what I'm saying is that 9fans exists, it IS a community; 9front > (the OS) has its own community that overlaps in part with 9fans; > 9legacy (the code) has users, individuals, mostly, who may ignore > 9front, but cannot possibly be accused in any real sense of > participating in a counter-9front conspiracy. If there is any evidence > to the contrary, I'd like to see it. I am not seeing it as a conspiracy [as I said in the prior, not as malice either]. You and several others seem to feel that “Plan 9” as an OS becomes stronger through editorialization by means of a single vision [whether person or committee]. Since P9F has been announced, some people are expressing a “need” for a single, definitive Plan 9 [post V4 in January, 2015]. You probably think that is the best. You and others advocating for it are the heroes of your story… of your vision. Conversely, quite a lot of people [not ironically including most 9front devs] don’t want authority. They kind of like having the Plan 9 flavor they use. I mean Jeanne is cool [I like 9front better] and kind of like the switch to markdown and some minor
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
19.08.2021 11:51:48 hiro <23h...@gmail.com>: Thank you for raising them. As I said up front, I am not a P9F member of any kind. But I know that its intentions are far less nefarious than of those who wittingly ascribe nefarious intentions to them. Can you prove that? what makes you competent to know without being a p9f member? Again, 9front has an "inside", get it to address with P9F their and your reservations. If they don't respond, then you and other 9fronters can bring evidence of ill intentions to this forum. Sadly that's not how it works. Until they specifically admit it, they have every right to claim they just had no time to act on behalf of unimportant pet projects. Of course over a longer time, such a claim becomes less and less believable... If their website source was available online I would happily send them a patch. ... and that says me, who always needs to figure put how to create and apply patches. sirjofri -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M54f582a8419e4702524b90f3 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
> Thank you for raising them. As I said up front, I am not a P9F member > of any kind. But I know that its intentions are far less nefarious > than of those who wittingly ascribe nefarious intentions to them. Can you prove that? what makes you competent to know without being a p9f member? > Again, 9front has an "inside", get it to address with P9F their and > your reservations. If they don't respond, then you and other 9fronters > can bring evidence of ill intentions to this forum. Sadly that's not how it works. Until they specifically admit it, they have every right to claim they just had no time to act on behalf of unimportant pet projects. Of course over a longer time, such a claim becomes less and less believable... -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M60bf55a5133002d55d4643db Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
... > would it not be better if the 9front community chose > to create a wikipedia entry for themselves? That said, if there was a > conspiracy, would the conspirators not have already wiped out 9front > from a wikipedia page over which they presumably have some level of > authority? the groups that are able to hold "power" over a wikipedia page are not easy to define, there's no traditional form of authority there. for example my IP is banned from editing wikipedia. it's impossible for the 9front community to play the necessary political games to maintain our own wikipedia website. it's much easier to just delete the 9front wikipedia entry and instead point to our own more authoritative non-wikipedia wiki. such efforts regularly get sabotaged by (well-meaning?) non-9front-related wikipedians. Their COC is probably not compatible to our COQ either ;) -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Maad596a97d7cd0fcd83f2410 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
19.08.2021 11:29:29 hiro <23h...@gmail.com>: anymore. Other dubious sources can be found on the 9front /who/ site about p9f, where they apparently stole resources from 9front/cat-v pages. Very suspicious somehow. that's because they lost the bell-labs server. else they could have "stolen" it from their own machines. we mirrored all the documents in fear that the data on that web server would get lost some day, and it seems we were right. I want to excuse myself here for the word "stole". I should have written it differently or at least put it in quotes. The mentioned resources were original Plan 9 resources afaik (or even obviously). I'm glad cat-v/9front was able to keep them stored for future generations. It's just not a good light having documents on a website with the title of cat-v/9front origin while not mentioning that part of the community at all. sirjofri -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mffbb6faea607aae13c39db35 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
> anymore. Other dubious sources can be found on the 9front /who/ site > about p9f, where they apparently stole resources from 9front/cat-v pages. > Very suspicious somehow. that's because they lost the bell-labs server. else they could have "stolen" it from their own machines. we mirrored all the documents in fear that the data on that web server would get lost some day, and it seems we were right. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M04dee619eb28a80a33ec48cc Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
On 8/19/21, sirjofri wrote: > Hello dear community, > > I've read through many things in this thread and just want to add some > two cents in a list format: > > 1) p9f (to my knowledge) never said anything about The One Plan 9. This > was afaik the idea of some other community member, and I never heard any > statement by p9f about that. > Indeed correct. My suggestion started with a lobbying idea for useful concepts such as the addition of Oauth2 to factotum so that there could be some momentum rather than spurious hope for interest to incorporate "core" changes into whatever P9F consider their target OS. I am not a member of P9F, when I checked the membership I assumed that my participation as more than a spectator would not be welcome - personal reasons. So instead i thought that as a lobbyist within a framework, I could expect to have a less subjectively negative value, period. > 2) In fact, p9f is pretty silent, not only these days. This could be a > good sign, as they let community be what they are, only occasionally > taking part in it. > P9F owes no one anything. Some resources seem to have moved under their umbrella, contributed voluntarily. The licence change has been an important step forward. Again, approaching P9F in a public forum may or may not have a more positive impact. Like it or not, the foundation is operated by humans and historically active Plan 9 "fans" have behaved controversially. Not all, but a lot. > 3) the p9f website promotes links to the Plan 9 archive software (V1-V4), > 9legacy as "Plan 9 with many useful patches", the RPi version and other > Plan 9 resources. 9front is _never_ mentioned at all. It seems like they > don't consider 9front as a Plan 9 system at all. > That is true and only P9F can address that issue. Which does rather throw a spanner in Keith's complaints about me, because his claim is that P9F want to assimilate and dominate 9front, based on a very thin claim from me that I would be happier in a 1P9 universe. But let's not ad hominem unnecessarily. Incidentally, all contributions to 9legacy and/or mentioned as P9F resources are either inherited from Nokia (have I got that right?) or from individual members of P9F. As an afterthought, is it not obvious that 9front may be able to get a seat at the table if they contributed in a similar way? Is that possible? Has such an approach already been turned down? What do we know? > I don't know why, it's possible they just don't want it to exist or they > don't know how to see it. It just hurts me personally as a community > person who uses 9front and not the original Plan 9. And it's confusing. > Am I even a Plan 9 user? The core OS principles are the same and most > "shell" concepts also. > Totally. No one labels you a Plan 9 user, you do that yourself. There are subtle semantic issues with the original "9front" nomenclature and remote history. We've all grown up a lot since then, but part of growing up includes owning errors of judgement. We can, presumably, find our way forward without that baggage, maybe not. Opinions seem to vary (my own personal conflicts included) in this forum. > 4) The split between original Plan9/9legacy and the 9front fork is > reflected in a split between communities. David and the 9front core devs > already showed that they are generally willing to share and accept > patches and I never noticed any bad tone in their discussion, however the > community is split up. And I don't think that we are so big that we _had_ > to split up, there are other reasons, maybe historical reasons I don't > know as a "fresh" community member with only ~5 years. > As I mentioned elsewhere, there is what seems to me a well defined "9front inside circle", which basically seems to include, by default or by choice, everyone that uses 9front as their primary (Plan 9) platform. Vocal defenders of 9front all appear to carry virtual membership cards to this circle. And in case I am once again misunderstood, I think that is a very important and positive aspect of the 9front community. As a pale-skinned South African (European descent), I am also deemed to carry a membership card to some kind of circle, so I'm not incompetent to address this aspect. What seems to be harped upon by the vocal defenders of 9front, however, is this fictional idea that there is another community, let's call them "9legacy", that is attempting to subvert 9front's efforts to gain some kind of recognition in the bigger picture. I know no one whose preference, like mine, is to stick closer to the 9legacy release of Plan 9, who in some way wants to reduce the value of 9front. Just as OP points out, cooperation between David and Cinap and colleagues has been cordial, if occasionally confrontational, for many, many years. So Hiro and Kurt and others can be scratchy and no doubt so can I, I don't think any of us have done any permanent damage to the 9fans or the narrower 9front community. Hmm, there has been some damage, quite a way back,
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
> more that one is less adverse to pulling the out the whole engine to fix the > car and the other is more adverse i think the better comparison is that with our volkswagen we can actually drive. i know the bell-labs car radio won't even boot bec. you're using the wrong IDE port. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mbe7983b17b5ba71467f89381 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
Hello dear community, I've read through many things in this thread and just want to add some two cents in a list format: 1) p9f (to my knowledge) never said anything about The One Plan 9. This was afaik the idea of some other community member, and I never heard any statement by p9f about that. 2) In fact, p9f is pretty silent, not only these days. This could be a good sign, as they let community be what they are, only occasionally taking part in it. 3) the p9f website promotes links to the Plan 9 archive software (V1-V4), 9legacy as "Plan 9 with many useful patches", the RPi version and other Plan 9 resources. 9front is _never_ mentioned at all. It seems like they don't consider 9front as a Plan 9 system at all. I don't know why, it's possible they just don't want it to exist or they don't know how to see it. It just hurts me personally as a community person who uses 9front and not the original Plan 9. And it's confusing. Am I even a Plan 9 user? The core OS principles are the same and most "shell" concepts also. 4) The split between original Plan9/9legacy and the 9front fork is reflected in a split between communities. David and the 9front core devs already showed that they are generally willing to share and accept patches and I never noticed any bad tone in their discussion, however the community is split up. And I don't think that we are so big that we _had_ to split up, there are other reasons, maybe historical reasons I don't know as a "fresh" community member with only ~5 years. 5) I really wished p9f would tell us more about their plans. It really seems like it's what we (9gridchan chat) feared in the beginning: a secret society. p9f is very silent, currently only seems to manage GSoC and nothing more. They told us they needed time to organize GSoC and themselves, but that was in january/february! It's fine if they want to be silent, but it would be nice to see what we can expect from them. Currently it seems like they just want to share links to 9legacy and the archive and organize GSoC and hide the fact that 9front exists. 6) p9f had a page about their purpose. It was like, they want to promote all Plan 9 systems and related technologies: 9atom, 9legacy, ... missing the (apparently) most obvious one: 9front. I couldn't find the page anymore. Other dubious sources can be found on the 9front /who/ site about p9f, where they apparently stole resources from 9front/cat-v pages. Very suspicious somehow. 7) To clarify: I don't want to see p9f as bad. I want to see them as a nice organization which is open for community efforts that need some official site. I want to see other community members/devs there, maybe one 9front contributor. I want to see them mentioning 9front like they mention other Plan 9 projects. I want to see p9f members open their mouths sometimes (which does happen) and take part in the community. These are my wishes and notes, everything from my perspective. sirjofri -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mc7a4815c52acb2ee56b20f23 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
Quoth 6o205z...@sneakemail.com: > I had never heard of acme-lsp and LSP (except as a Microsoft internal > thing) until gabi mentioned it earlier in the thread. I'm interesting > in playing with acme-lsp for C++. Which LSP server do you use for C/C++ > (I see several listed at https://langserver.org/)? ccls works with acme-lsp. You might find this useful for the LSP/C++/acme use case: - https://9lab.org/9port/acme-with-lsp/ -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M0348f16ace38fc0148a2045e Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] Software philosophy
Hej Eli, I think, philosophically, there is a disconnect re: the status of 9front vs 9legacy by 9legacy folks. Even David suggested that 9legacy is “real” Plan 9, rather than a fork. Fundamentally this is semantics, but it leads to seeing them as fundamentally different things, when they really aren’t. The true disconnect is what position within each hold in regards to each other. Historically, forks (after a point) stay forks and no longer contribute “upstream” to their parent for love and cookies. They become cooperative peers [in good cases] or competition [in not so good cases]. Even *if* 9legacy is the “true" torchbearer, the fork happened ages ago. Some in the 9legacy camp see 9front as a downstream project that should [be forced] to make patches for the “true” Plan 9. Most 9front devs and users see them as peer projects and feel that pointing to the source code and letting 9legacy folks make their own patch the reasonable answer. Most 9front people have no vested interest in porting anything to 9legacy, since it is not the one they use. To them, it is like Ubuntu being expected to upstream cherry picked features and bug changes hand selected by Debian developers who don’t want to do it. Pretty absurd. Insofar as what David du Colombier said that 9legacy is a “continuation” of Plan 9 from Bell Labs, sure. However, cinap or hiro or Ori or a bunch of other people here can make that same argument with 9front. 9front came about because people were slow to fix things or reticent to change things. In this way, *both* are continuations. But in the end, looking at the project as a peer vs project as a subordinate offshoot frames how further dialog and cooperation is done. In the former, we can point at code, debate healthy re: what level of compatibility is worth it [i.e. what Plan 9 from Bell Labs version 2 software are you really wanting to run and not just update a few lines of code…], what provisional changes can be made to fix issues but maintain old interfaces while everyone catch up, bugs in the legacy code that can be fixed, how can we collectively showcase software tools [non-OS code] made by the collective community, etc. In the latter, it will typically degrade to finger wagging for doing something that steps over some invisible line or demanding that specific changes be ported to the “real” one… i.e. 9front contributors have the bulk of the emotional and physical labor supporting a version they will never use. hiro made a bit of a tongue in cheek, shit talking quip re: “lol but it is” since 9front, for good or for bad, probably commits orders of magnitude more code than other 9family projects. And from the 9front ml and code discussions, the community does keep pretty high standards in not just committing crap, cruft, or flights of fancy into the repo. Design wise, both 9legacy and 9front stick to simplicity and cleanliness present in the software culture of the Bell Labs team. It isn’t like one is crazy bloat and the other is elegant… more that one is less adverse to pulling the out the whole engine to fix the car and the other is more adverse. One is less interested in backwards compatibility with versions from 20 years ago for backwards compatibility sake and one wants to not have anything not run that V4 can. Both are different strategies and have different benefits... So not to belabour things further, I think we kind of need to come to somewhat of a consensus re: how these two project relate. I honestly think that imposing a “One Plan 9” or reframing 9legacy as the authoritative parent project will in fact harm 9legacy more the 9front, as the latter is more comfortable doing its own thing and honestly, 9front works better on more hardware and is more actively updated and supported. Agreeing that both projects are sister projects allows more dialog and actual sharing to happen. My intention was not to spark some sort of holy war and I get the feeling most people in this community see the two are peer projects. When people float the idea of the P9F imposing a “One Plan 9” by dictum rather than the actual codebases, community members, etc. deciding how things should work, well, that needs to be called out… -pixelheresy > On 19. Aug 2021, at 1.00, Eli Cohen wrote: > > what is all the friction actually about here?? the most important > philosophical question always ends up the same, how can we figure out > a good formula for not being jerks? > > I have ended up using 9front more and more, obviously. 9front was > started specifically to address the fact that Plan 9 from Bell Labs > didn't run on most computers... If I have any feeling at all about it, > it's that there's room for another fork that is an even simpler > research platform. in other discussions people say, why do we have > things that aren't relevant? We all love catclock, email... some users > may only want plan 9 for that... some people also discussed even > removing
