no clue which conflict you're seeing, vic.
there's been some trolling back and forth since forever, there's been
complaints and contributions, and more complaints about the
contributions and the lack of contributions. as it should be. we can
have one united community if you like but then i hope we still have
those complaints. if no issues come up it just means that nobody used
the system.
personally i think non-dp9ik protocols should be removed completely or
at the very least only allowed with very big fat warning messages. if
9legacy still doesn't have dp9ik, then why don't you just let 9legacy
die? is there a single 9legacy-only improvement that's worth having in
the first place? why does this discussion here even exist? if you want
interoperability between things just upgrade everything to 9front.
there's no more straightforward way, or?
i know from linuxland where some garbage firmware or closed-source
kernel driver prevents the use of newer linux releases, but i don't
see similar problems in the 9front world at all. 9front provides a
very steady and stable upgrade path i see no reason to keep an older
plan9 4th edition system alive at all. what hardware does anybody have
where 9front doesn't work but plan9 4th edition does?!
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 11:53 PM <vic.thac...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Hi Hiro et al,
>
> This mailing list is focused on Plan 9 discussions. Noticing conflicts
> between the 9legacy and 9front communities indicates that adopting
> collaborative strategies could be advantageous. In my detailed post, I aimed
> to provide a comprehensive overview to fully encapsulate the topic. Having
> observed conflicts evolve over more than two decades, I am motivated to
> suggest improvements rather than seeing history repeat itself. I contributed
> my comments in hopes of fostering meaningful positive change. I value both
> 9front and 9legacy but choose to remain neutral and refrain from taking
> sides. In my view, there's no advantage in picking sides, particularly among
> us 9fans. The need for collaboration seems great, I'm astonished that more
> collaboration hasn't happened over the years.
>
> Kind regards,
> Vester
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2024, at 05:10, hiro wrote:
> > vester, why do you recommend all these things so overly
> > methodologically that are all already a reality in the 9front
> > community? are you a bot?
> >
> > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 9:18 PM <vester.thac...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Members of the 9legacy and 9front Communities,
> >>
> >> This message is intended to share thoughts on potential improvements to
> >> collaborative processes between systems. The aim is to foster an
> >> environment that encourages ongoing enhancement and mutual support.
> >>
> >> Community Efforts
> >> Appreciation is extended to all community members for their dedication in
> >> updating and maintaining these systems. Their efforts are vital to
> >> collective progress.
> >>
> >> Community Dialogue
> >> An open forum for all members to share insights, discuss challenges, and
> >> propose solutions related to system updates and integration efforts could
> >> prove beneficial. Such dialogue can help better understand different
> >> perspectives and formulate effective strategies collaboratively.
> >>
> >> Collaborative Working Group
> >> The creation of a working group to address specific technical challenges,
> >> such as integrating the dp9ik security protocol, could facilitate smoother
> >> and more efficient integration. Interested members might consider
> >> participating in such a group.
> >>
> >> Transparency in Decision-Making
> >> Improving the transparency of decision-making processes is a goal. Sharing
> >> regular informational updates could keep everyone informed about the
> >> progress and decisions that affect both communities.
> >>
> >> Inclusive Decision-Making Processes
> >> Exploring ways to ensure that decision-making processes reflect the
> >> community's needs and inputs is under consideration. Contributions on how
> >> to achieve this are highly valued.
> >>
> >> Recognition Program
> >> Recognizing the hard work and achievements of community members is
> >> important. Plans to introduce a recognition program that highlights
> >> significant contributions and successes are being explored.
> >>
> >> Addressing Historical Concerns
> >> Dedicating time to openly discuss historical concerns is crucial for
> >> moving forward. This could help reconcile and strengthen community ties.
> >>
> >> Feedback on these suggestions and potential interest in participating in
> >> these initiatives is invited. Contributions from community members are
> >> invaluable and will help shape the direction of collaborative efforts.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your engagement and commitment to the community.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Vester
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 9, 2024, at 01:29, Jacob Moody wrote:
> >> > On 5/8/24 11:06, Lucio De Re wrote:
> >> >> There is much I would like to explain, but the problem I am attempting
> >> >> to solve ought to have an obvious answer that I am clearly missing.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't seem to get a 9front workstation to mount a networked 9legacy
> >> >> fossil service. The FS is a fairly pristine 9legacy installation, on a
> >> >> somewhat old 386 platform. I did need to tweak various parameters on
> >> >> both side, but eventually I got to the point where both hosts declare
> >> >> that the connection has been established; now on the 9front workstation
> >> >> I get the message
> >> >> "srv net!192.96.33.148!9fs: mount failed: fossil authCheck: auth
> >> >> protocol not finished"
> >> >> I suspect the culprit is the lack of the newer "dp9ik" security on
> >> >> 9legacy, in which case it would be helpful to know how to work around
> >> >> that.
> >> >
> >> > Probably. Why not just temporarily disable auth checks for the fossil
> >> > 9legacy machine?
> >> > Or perhaps just take a disk/mkfs backup and tar that. You really have
> >> > chosen the most painful way of accomplishing this (which you seem to
> >> > acknowledge).
> >> > Or just exportfs the root? There are so many ways of just getting the
> >> > files.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why am I mixing my platforms like this? Because the hardware on which I
> >> >> am attempting to recover a rather large historical file system is split
> >> >> between IDE and SATA and I have no hardware that can handle both disk
> >> >> modes and I need to move information between the two media types. I am
> >> >> not describing all the dead ends I tried, incidentally, that would take
> >> >> too long and really expose my limited understanding.
> >> >>
> >> >> It took almost a day to copy the Fossil cache (or lose a lot of the
> >> >> most recent changes) and now I need (or at least want) to update the
> >> >> default boot ("arenas") Venti configuration on a SATA drive which I can
> >> >> only access on hardware I can't install 9legacy on. It's complicated
> >> >> and I'm sure there are people here who would not find this so daunting,
> >> >> but that's where I am at. To be precise, I need to change the Fossil
> >> >> default configuration (in the "fossil" cache) so it points to the
> >> >> correct Venti
> >> >> arenas. I'll deal with the analogous Venti situation when I get past
> >> >> the total absence of Fossil tools on 9front.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess I can port fossil/conf to 9front, but I'm not sure I have the
> >> >> stomach to try that. Maybe now that I have raised the possibility...
> >> >
> >> > It sound like you're trying to make this someone else's problem.
> >> > Being stuck in a hardware pickle when there are ample existing software
> >> > solutions is not
> >> > a good reason to ask someone else to go out of their way to write
> >> > software.
> >> >
> >> > Fossil can be pulled in largely without modifications as I understand it,
> >> > I don't run fossil but some people in the 9front community do and it does
> >> > not appear to me that they've had issues with continuing to have it work
> >> > (other then fossil bugs itself).
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I managed to share the Fossil cache through a NetBSD server providing
> >> >> u9fs services, but that host does not have the capacity to store the
> >> >> Venti arenas, nor can I really justify spending the amount of time it
> >> >> would take to pass it between the 9legacy and 9front devices via
> >> >> NetBSD, no matter how I try to arrange that. It does baffle me, though,
> >> >> that a NetBSD intermediary is more competent than the two "native"
> >> >> platforms.
> >> >
> >> > Are you blaming us for moving on from AES 53 bit keys that can be brute
> >> > forced in an afternoon?
> >> > I have tried to open a dialogue for getting dp9ik on 9legacy a couple
> >> > times now, when I had brought it
> >> > up I am told to write the patch. Something about being asked to spend
> >> > the work to write a patch for 9legacy given
> >> > the historical context of why 9front exists does not sit right with me.
> >> > So it wont be me, sorry.
> >> > Sure it sucks that things have drifted, but all our code is there,
> >> > neatly organized out in to commits, if someone
> >> > wants to import our work it is readily available. However something
> >> > tells me most people are just going to use 9front as is.
> >> >
> >> > Good luck,
> >> > moody
> >> >
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tde2ca2adda383a3a-Mb4948fb5aeee2cee181a6feb
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
