> why don't you just let 9legacy die?
You are not paying attention: I have a multi-gigabyte commitment to Fossil.
I am not convinced *I* could "just port" Fossil to 9front (if it was all
that easy, why was it discarded entirely?) and I don't have the hardware to
migrate the data to a different disk representation. In fact, I can't even
justify attempting to migrate my setup to P9P under Linux (or NetBSD, which
is my preferred POSIX flavour) where Fossil may be better supported than
under 9front. And if the question "why don't you just let 9legacy die?" has
any validity, then Windows or Linux could be said to justify
the analogous "why don't you just let 9front die?"
Hiro, if there was no conflict, in the sense of an hostile attitude, then
Moodly would not have accused me of being lazy in a public forum. Nor would
you consider it good manners in the same forum to demand that people should
follow some "true way" as you suggest. That's where Vic's attitude is so
much less antagonistic than your own. And I have believed since I first met
Cinap in Greece in 2008 that neither he nor his development colleagues
share your attitude. You may br factually right, but that is really not
enough.
Lucio.
On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 9:52 PM hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > >> >
--
Lucio De Re
2 Piet Retief St
Kestell (Eastern Free State)
9860 South Africa
Ph.: +27 58 653 1433
Cell: +27 83 251 5824
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tde2ca2adda383a3a-M5f89ff6ce95412bd3c10da5d
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
