the best way to piss off a linux dude who wakes up, updates his system,
goes to work, updates everything that isn't locked down, and then sit's you
in front of a "good box" ... is to say every two minutes "how do i get rid of
this gargoyle". was a funny day ... i showed him how the mouse didn't
w
On 3/6/07, Vester Thacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I apologize for offending you. But what ideas are you suggesting
that we migrate toward?
no, sorry, I was kind of short. No problem :-)
I actually agree with your points in many ways. I just don't know how
to get around the problem of
On 3/7/07, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're right. All those experiences I had with people when I tried to
show them Plan 9 were just my imagination. Sorry. Too many drugs
maybe.
Well, I apologize for offending you. But what ideas are you suggesting
that we migrate toward?
Transp
On 3/6/07, Vester Thacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, I hope that we can move past Rio being the bane of Plan 9. I'm
quite sure Rio alone is not what limits Plan 9's popularity and usage
today.
you're right. All those experiences I had with people when I tried to
show them Plan 9 were
On 3/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do we expect our computer usage to require no sacrifices at all?
Geez, this thread is shite. We might as well be on an irc channel.
#plan9 on irc.oftc.net anyone?
I think the issue really comes down to a lack of educational material
On 3/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fuck 'em!
>>
>>
>> this is not just a matter of "we are so smart, we get rio, and no one
>> else does, so F*** 'em!". I know lots of smart peope. One look at rio
>> is enough to put them off their feed, and to chase them away from Plan
>>
> Why do we expect our computer usage to require no sacrifices at all?
Also, Ron is barking up the wrong tree (with all due respect). Either
Plan 9 is good enough or it isn't, it is counter-productive to try to
shove it down the throat of unwilling users even when it may be
perfect for some embed
On 3/6/07, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/6/07, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i suggest F-Hue
well, marketing has never been a strong point of this group, although
I do think our sense of humor has no equal :-)
ron
"Use Plan 9... We've raised our standards, so u
If anybody wants to try this with an embedded Plan 9, let me know. We
can help with mainboard selection. Andrey and I did the
proof-of-concept years ago for embedded plan 9 and linuxbios, but we
did not do video.
thanks
ron
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alan Carvalho de Assis <[E
On 3/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It makes a good excuse though. If it's not the licence, it's rio or
lack of X11 or .
I'll take the excuse du jour with a side of elitism, please, and easy
on the licensing!
John Floren
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhta
It makes a good excuse though. If it's not the licence, it's rio or
lack of X11 or .
--- Begin Message ---
>and [rio] is undoubtedly why plan9 remains obscure.
i think that's very unlikely to be the main reason, myself.--- End Message ---
On 3/6/07, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i suggest F-Hue
well, marketing has never been a strong point of this group, although
I do think our sense of humor has no equal :-)
ron
>and [rio] is undoubtedly why plan9 remains obscure.
i think that's very unlikely to be the main reason, myself.
i suggest F-Hue
On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:08 PM, C H Forsyth wrote:
we could be a little less obvious and use the Father Ted variant
From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 6, 2007 2:37:55 PM PST
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans]
we could be a little less obvious and use the Father Ted variant--- Begin Message ---
On 3/6/07, matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
fuck 'em!
>
I think that's a great name for our next GUI
-eric--- End Message ---
On 3/6/07, matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
fuck 'em!
>
I think that's a great name for our next GUI
-eric
On 3/6/07, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, I run rio, on linux and plan 9, and I like it. But, that said, if
Plan 9 has an achilles heel, rio is it. It's the first (and last)
thing many people see on Plan 9.
If the average Linux user is as picky about his window managers as I
am,
ron minnich wrote:
As for C++, it has happened on any number of machines I have worked
with, whether there is a compile on them or not, gcc/g++ are a
prerequisite for success. Like it or not. I really wish we could get
someone to wrap up the gcc port and feed the changes back into the
tree.
fuck 'em!
this is not just a matter of "we are so smart, we get rio, and no one
else does, so F*** 'em!". I know lots of smart peope. One look at rio
is enough to put them off their feed, and to chase them away from Plan
9. Plan 9 is not just about rio -- at least to me.
On 3/6/07, bride of excession <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am so glad to see I'm not alone on this issue.
Much as I love plan9, to me Rio is just a very
cumbersome and eye gouging way to view images,
yes, it is to many.
this is not just a matter of "we are so smart, we get rio, and no one
els
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:10:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ron minnich) wrote:
> On 2/26/07, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > plan 9 is having trouble keeping the converted. why would
> > adding one more layer of goo to the gnu goo stack convert
> > the hardened of heart?
>
> Because the f
On 3/6/07, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i guess this is pedantic but, yes it does mean the device is bound
into the namespace and in most cases you can send and receive
raw ethernet frames.
I do not consider it pedantic at all. Thank you very much for the correction!
My apologies
On Tue Mar 6 04:55:44 EST 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Stevie_Lancaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your reply. Under /net there is already a directory ether0.
> > So I guess the device got binded there. Am I right?
>
> I believe it to mean that the device was reco
On 3/6/07, Stevie_Lancaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your reply. Under /net there is already a directory ether0.
So I guess the device got binded there. Am I right?
I believe it to mean that the device was recognized, but it does not
mean that it was binded.
Are bind -a and bind
On 5 Mrz., 11:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vester Thacker) wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Stevie_Lancaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What can I do to tell ip/pppoe to just use my formerly created "0"
> > interface?
>
> Before running "ip/pppoe -dP", ensure "bind -b '#l0' /net" has been executed.
>
> HTH,
>
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
