On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 11:04:28 AM Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:42 AM, errno wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:20:27 AM Jack Johnson wrote:
> >> which is why I find it hard to get hot headed over any of the
> >> assertions, but tend t
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:20:27 AM Jack Johnson wrote:
> which is why I find it hard to get hot headed over any of the assertions,
> but tend toward trusting the research.
>
What research?
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:57:37 AM Guilherme Lino wrote:
> oh yea a apple R&D from 1989 that justifies everything
>
Heheh, and you know it's worse even than that. Because, _what_
Apple R&D? Where can I review the tests and measurements - and
the parameters involved thereof - performed in this
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:46:39 PM Charles Forsyth wrote:
> i've just got back to reading the list to find that
> some people clearly have no difficulty using a keyboard!
>
And it's certainly comforting to know that some folks really know
their way around a mouse!
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 01:30:37 PM andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM, errno wrote:
> > [words like "bazillion"]
>
> can you summarize what you wrote using less keystrokes? the time spent
> thinking your message through is certainly
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 09:27:49 AM Jacob Todd wrote:
> There's an article on the wiki containing links to related info, also.
>
Does anyone have the actual text of this $50 million dollar research
apple performed? Does anyone know the actual parameters and
proficiency levels of the human subj
Hey David, thanks for responding.
The sci-fi you write below is exactly the sort of fiction I'd find
very interesting in "9 space", and corresponds rather closely
to what I premised in a past thread[1].
So, I believe we're speaking the same language; but the picture
you've painted seems out-o
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 04:40:50 PM Jacob Todd wrote:
> Writing/porting web stuff to plan 9 will be hard. Writing
> something that accesses plan 9 from the web will be less
> hard.
>
Correct; but also somewhat ancillary to the general areas
of concern:
> Is it really all that often when a Pl
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:31:32 AM John Floren wrote:
> they want to let you connect to your Plan 9 system from a web
> browser, because you can find a Javascript-supporting web browser
> anywhere (except Plan 9) these days.
>
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:00:15 AM Adrian Tritschler wrote:
> Serv
On Friday, May 06, 2011 05:12:02 PM Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > A veneer of html + css + javascript over the intrinsically distributed
> > foundations of Plan 9, would provide the bridge for an entire class of
>
> > use-cases currently out of reach:
> Speaking in platitudes doesn't make a case. Ho
On Friday, May 06, 2011 04:56:26 PM Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:47 PM, errno wrote:
> > When friends and family can comfortably use it, for activities other
> > than data-archival, then I can deploy it for uses beyond my own limited,
> > personal l
On Friday, May 06, 2011 09:07:07 AM errno wrote:
> * said unit can comfortably support ~10 simultaneous users, each using
> super-cheap thin-clients at ~$200 dollars per unit
>
Make that ~$25 dollars per unit:
On Friday, May 06, 2011 03:15:46 PM Gorka Guardiola wrot
m to
enjoy Plan 9 more often, while reducing linux dependency, and reducing
overall costs: both in hardware requirements, and in maintenance time/effort.
On Sunday, May 01, 2011 09:09:06 PM errno wrote:
> The idea is to remove the "middle-man".
On Friday, May 06, 2011 12:08:04 AM
Quick attempt at damage control, hope it's not too late:
On Friday, May 06, 2011 03:32:26 PM Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> [...] errno pulls this off. [...] something like FireFox working on Plan 9.
> Let's say that the executable is fully functional
>
People may take it you lite
On Friday, May 06, 2011 09:29:33 AM Jack Norton wrote:
> You've got some misplaced idealism.
>
Yeah you're probably right.
> In the end though, the list will eventually say it: start hammering out
> some code and we'll see what you come up with. Proof in the pudding
I'm aware that 9fans doesn't usually take kindly to speculative fiction,
conjecture, or speculation. Please forgive me, I'm writing with honest
intentions.
On Friday, May 06, 2011 05:07:21 AM Lucio De Re wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:45:27PM -0700, errno wrote
On Friday, May 06, 2011 05:59:25 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
> > In other words, I think I can manage to eventually port small ad-hoc
> > stuff; and then slowly "bake" it closer and closer to something that
> > is more and more "9'ish".
>
> i hope that works for you. unfortunately, i think that proc
On Friday, May 06, 2011 12:08:08 AM ron minnich wrote:
> > After a few months of reading and learning and actual hands-on
> > experience, I've found that rio and acme and mk and 8c ,etc., are
> > far less interesting than union directories, per-process namespaces,
> > 9p and intrinsic, ubiquitous d
On Thursday, May 05, 2011 09:35:15 PM ron minnich wrote:
> The reason I asked if errno had looked at webfs was that he can do the
> standard thing (port some C++/Python Library From Hell to Plan 9)
>
The above described standard thing is more in line with my capabilities.
Porting clan
On Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:20:47 PM Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> it is (or was) in fgb's contrib. he ported it over back in 2006.
>
> cpue% js
> js> help()
> JavaScript-C 1.5 pre-release 6a 2004-06-09
>
Right on.
One step closer to web domination from a plan 9 platform.
(:
Thankyou kindly for
On Thursday, May 05, 2011 09:35:15 PM ron minnich wrote:
> The reason I asked if errno had looked at webfs was that he can do the
> standard thing (port some C++/Python Library From Hell to Plan 9)
>
The above described standard thing is more in line with my capabilities.
Porting clan
On Monday, May 02, 2011 03:38:53 AM Salman Aljammaz wrote:
> why is everyone on about native web? what does that even mean?
>
> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2011/04/15/nativity-scene
>
> (sorry, couldn't resist!)
>
(:
It occurs to me that the existence of webfs and abaco, etc. are indicato
are to learn and write limbo for inferno. Thus,
for me, linking against libc on plan 9 is considered more optimal.
On Sunday, May 01, 2011 08:39:02 PM ron minnich wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:11 PM, errno wrote:
> > etc.
>
> Just wondering if you have looked at webfs.
>
I've browsed the source, a few months ago; when I first felt the lack
of a more current-standards-conforming web experience. (I keep
saying "web experience" so as not to tie myself to "web browser".)
On Sunday, May 01, 2011 07:38:43 PM erik quanstrom wrote:
> > I'll risk venturing an opinion on that approach:
> >
> > Running a plan 9 hosted inferno is essentially another take on the vnc or
> > linuxemu workarounds. It won't provide the same freedoms and benefits
> > of a native library/engine/
On Sunday, May 01, 2011 06:44:42 PM erik quanstrom wrote:
> > I suspect netsurf might actually be better to work from than charon,
> > if only because netsurf is already written c rather than limbo, and
> > has already been ported to many platforms.
>
> unless i've completely misunderstood, brian
On Sunday, May 01, 2011 04:56:40 PM blstu...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Starting Goal: a modern, standards compliant web engine library
> > for Plan 9
>
> As others have pointed out that's pretty hard to define,
>
Agreed, I did try to make an attempt at a modicum of a definition to
work from, bu
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 04:33:23 PM Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > Gecko is also written primarily in c++, which means porting a c++
> > compiler to plan 9 would still remain a prerequisite for that path also.
>
> No, it's written in a combination of g++- and
> whatever Visual Studio calls C++ fo
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 03:21:09 PM smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
> errno writes:
> > Due to the requirements, it appears that incorporating the web as a
> > 1st-class-platform in plan 9 is effectively unapproachable:
>
> You forgot to backtrack to your webkit/gecko c
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 01:25:53 AM Steve Simon wrote:
> First I assume you have used abaco - it is incomplete but its the best
> plan9 has at present - without using linuxemu.
>
I appreciate abaco for what it is, but unfortunately it's not something I
can expect to satisfy most users' activi
On Friday, April 29, 2011 11:26:03 PM Anthony Sorace wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:05 AM, errno wrote:
> > But APE has c++ (old version of gcc though).
>
> APE has no c++. there is a very old version of gcc floating around on
> sources that can, with some effort, sometimes
On Friday, April 29, 2011 09:05:39 PM errno wrote:
> Yep, I'm aware of the vnc workaround... but, it's just the same as
> a native, or near-native approach.
>
I meant: "[...] but, it's just _not_ the same as a native approach."
> a bit trollish to me.
>
I have/had no intent, no interest, and no benefit in trolling; please don't
accuse me of being antisocial. I apologize if "disingenuous" was the wrong
term.
> why don't we get back on track?
>
Ok:
On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:32:09 AM e
On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:43:21 AM Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2011, at 6:47 pm, Anthony Sorace wrote:
> > • Unification of X11 code and wsys device, by Jesús Galán López [1]
>
> [...]
>
> > [1] http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/
> > gsoc2011/yiyus/1
>
> I'm
On Friday, April 29, 2011 02:04:26 AM Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > [1] For those gnashing teeth over glibc - might want to check out
> > musl libc. It's no plan 9 libc, but it's definitely "less worse" than
> > glibc.
>
> ``News: As of version 0.7.7, musl has been successfully bootstrapped by a
> t
along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yaP_kc3y9w
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 08:11:49 PM andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> errno, you sound like you may be trespassing on our collective 9fans
> lawn. i wave a cane in your general direction.
>
Plan 9 rules and linux drools - I get it - but,
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:39:07 PM erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Apr 28 15:30:38 EDT 2011, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 of April 2011 20:50:14 Brian L. Stuart wrote: > Life is
> > too short to configure and compile Linux and > GNU software.
> >
> > or spending days on ch
On Sunday, April 24, 2011 09:10:22 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
>
Thanks for satisfying those questions, much appreciated!
On Sunday, April 24, 2011 08:01:01 AM Steve Simon wrote:
> Ideally there would be a wiki page on this - I will have a go shortly...
>
That would be helpful; looking through th
On Sunday, April 24, 2011 04:13:59 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other?
> >
> > In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding
> > which of the two are more appropriate for any given new
> > installation/deployment? (
Hello!
Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other?
In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding
which of the two are more appropriate for any given new
installation/deployment? (let's assume that kfs's 28-character filename
limit isn't an issue,
39 matches
Mail list logo
