Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

Oh yes, I read Eldon Halls book on that quite a few years ago. Meetings held to discuss competing potential uses for a word of memory that had become free. That one would be a challenging Plan9 port.. On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 05:13, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Digby R.S. Tarvin wri

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 21:40, Ethan Gardener wrote: > > > > Not sure I would agree with that. The 20 bit addressing of the 8086 and > 8088 did not change their 16 bit nature. They were still 16 bit program > counter, with segmentation to provide access to a larger memory - similar > in principle

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

ne by dedicated chips, not on cpu! :) > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, Digby R.S. Tarvin > wrote: > > I don't know which other ARM board you tried, but I have always found > terrible I/O performance of the Pi to be a bigger problem that the ARM > speed. The USB2 interfa

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

I don't know which other ARM board you tried, but I have always found terrible I/O performance of the Pi to be a bigger problem that the ARM speed. The USB2 interface is really slow, and there arn't really many other (documented) alternative options. The Ethernet goes through the same slow USB

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 23:00, Ethan Gardener wrote: > > Fascinating thread, but I think you're off by a decade with the 16-bit > address bus comment, unless you're not actually talking about Plan 9. The > 8086 and 8088 were introduced with 20-bit addressing in 1978 and 1979 > respectively. The

Re: [9fans] PDP11

to the lights and read from the switches, for example.. Regards. DigbyT On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 14:23, David Arnold wrote: > On 9 Oct 2018, at 14:08, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote: > > > <…> > > So I don't think it i would be worth a substantial rewrite to get it

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 10:07, Dan Cross wrote: > My guess is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit >> comfortably into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial >> implementation was done targeting a machine with significantly more >> resources, it would be easy to

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

Does anyone know what platform Plan9 was initially implemented on? My guess is that there is no reason in principle that it could not fit comfortably into the constraints of a PDP11/70, but if the initial implementation was done targeting a machine with significantly more resources, it would be

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

explored those limits, I suppose rather than speculating i'll just have to plan on a little experimentation when I get a bit of spare time. Regards, Digby On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 19:13, Nils M Holm wrote: > On 2018-10-08T15:29:02+1100, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote: > > A native Inferno port would

Re: [9fans] PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!)

:38, Lucio De Re wrote: > On 10/8/18, Digby R.S. Tarvin wrote: > > > > So the question is... is plan9 still lean and mean enough to fit onto a > > machine with a 64K address space? Doing a port would certainly provide > > plenty of opportunity to tinker with the l

Re: [9fans] what heavy negativity!

ooh, there's an idea for new project... I also have a soft spot for the old PDP11 architecture and aesthetics, and like the idea of an emulator sitting behind an 11/70 front panel, but I havn't been able to decide what software to run on it... Unix ran quite nicely on an 11/70 back in the late

Re: [9fans] Plan 9's style(6) manual page

I disagree with your assertion that inserting space after 'if', 'for', 'while' etc is universal outside of Plan 9. I have never adopted that convention, and it looks ugly to me. That is probably because I learned C by reading the Unix kernel source code (6th Edition) which displays a preference

Re: [9fans] (no subject)

I'd certainly be happy to give it a good home if nobody else has claimed it. digby...@gmail.com if you want to discuss logistics off the list... Digby. On 2 April 2018 at 16:27, Steve Simon wrote: > Hi, > > I am in the Uk, and moving house. > > t have an HP T5325 Thin

Re: [9fans] Is fossil/venti file system a good choice for SSD?

t; > I project my SSDs will not fail before i get 10/40gbit connection to > my NAS. Till then my write wear will be limited by my low bandwidth > and high latency practical use cases. > > On 2/4/18, Digby R.S. Tarvin <digby...@gmail.com> wrote: > > static web pages

Re: [9fans] Is fossil/venti file system a good choice for SSD?

static web pages, remote login (so that I can power/depower other hardware) and file remote file distribution (via scp) mostly. The main requirement is very low standby power consumption so that it can survive on batteries which are recharged using solar panels. Power consumption was the main

Re: [9fans] Is fossil/venti file system a good choice for SSD?

dvice (as relayed by Steve), or perhaps be even more fastidious about backups when using flash... On 3 February 2018 at 20:10, Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 18:49:50 +0000 "Digby R.S. Tarvin" <digby...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Digby R.S.

Re: [9fans] Is fossil/venti file system a good choice for SSD?

My experience of running normal (read mostly) Linux filesystems on solid state media is that SSD is more robust but far less reliable than rotating media. MTBF for rotating media for me has been around 10 years. MTBF for SSD has been about 2. And the SSD always seems to fail catastrophically -

Re: [9fans] Initial experience with Plan9 on Raspberry Pi

Thanks Richard for doing this port... It is quite I while since I last played with Plan9, and what I remember most from that time was how hard it was to assemble a compatible platform, and that I never had enough bits to try a real multi-host network. the RPi port promises to solve both problems!