I'm thinking about going through another installation, and I'm wondering
whether there's usefulness in undertaking a standalone terminal install
using only kfs rather than fossil? And if so, how is this currently done?
As far as I can tell, I'd want to use Erik's 9atom iso - which seems to
suppo
I use kfs on a standalone Plan 9 box.
The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
processing power. kfs on the other hand
is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.
Plus, the code is beautiful.
The install procedure from CD involved
manually going through the install
comma
> I'm thinking about going through another installation, and I'm wondering
> whether there's usefulness in undertaking a standalone terminal install
> using only kfs rather than fossil? And if so, how is this currently done?
there's currently no kfs/cwfs install option. it's only my list of thin
On Saturday 15 May 2010 9:23:51 erik quanstrom wrote:
> there's currently no kfs/cwfs install option. it's only my list of things
> to do.
>
Good to know, looking forward to when that's ready!
> remember that kfs != ken's fs
>
Cool thanks: I was indeed under the impression that they were the
> The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
> some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
> processing power. kfs on the other hand
> is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
> kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
> irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
> systems.
surely that's trivially fixable.
> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
> performance.
cwfs is the only user-mode fs that hits
On Sunday, May 16, 2010, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
>> irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
>> systems.
>
> surely that's trivially fixable.
>
>> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
On 16 May 2010, at 14:38, erik quanstrom wrote:
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
surely that's trivially fixable.
i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the 64
> i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the 64-
> bit version of kfs supports 56-character file names.
there is no 64-bit version of kfs.
for ken's fs the default is 56. you can set it to whatever you'd like.
the aoe-supporting version in my contrib and on 9atom is the
On 5/16/10, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
> performance.
I use it with these limitations (though, as is mentioned above,
the former can be trivially changed) almost daily. But I have
an interface to a (remote) Ken FS serve
10 matches
Mail list logo
