Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
On 8/18/21, o...@eigenstate.org wrote: > Quoth Lucio De Re : >> Does it work? > > Have you tried it? What bugs do you > have to report? > No. I have neither the 9front platform, nor the Oauth2 requirements that would motivate an outsider to try something like that out. Had I offered my services - or been asked by someone who knows that I have an interest in reducing factotum to a single service, nicely wrapped as I believe it can be for use across architectures, or my past, brief investigation of Oauth2 - I would feel obliged to do so and would do my best to deliver accordingly. Lobbyists have the greatest vested interest in providing their services. Not everyone can be expected to be driven by the quest for fame and glory. Maybe, like me, they like to adjust the mindset knobs a bit to make the context nicer to work in. Or, also like me, to encourage those who have greater skills and knowledge toward an objective they share. I don't expect miracles and I don't feel much pain when others revolt violently against what I attempt to formulate as suggestions rather than mandates. You may want to save your barbs for more sensitive targets. Lucio. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M5a895ccfabca569acf13f32e Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
"Why am I so affected by her death? The deaths of countless others have never elicited such an emotional response in me." - Data "If we knew the answer to that... human history might be a lot less bloody." - Riker On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 9:22 PM wrote: > > Quoth Lucio De Re : > > Does it work? > > Have you tried it? What bugs do you > have to report? > -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M7983db2521327a11491d43dc Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
Quoth Lucio De Re : > Does it work? Have you tried it? What bugs do you have to report? -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-Mc8c90fc9b9a041f8af54503f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
On 8/17/21, o...@eigenstate.org wrote: > Quoth Lucio De Re : >> PS: This does rather sound like we ought to have a lobbying group > > You realize that this *is* the lobbying, right? > Does it work? > Someone did the work, posted a patch, and is > asking for review and possibly commits. > I wasn't aware I inhibited that in any way. But clearly your response suggests I did. > Stop derailing the discussion. > I accept the reprimand, it is valid. My nature is to be part of a bigger whole rather than a shining light and I tend to look for opportunities to confirm my beliefs. I'll try to hold back some. Lucio. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-Mc796911b62abdc1ebb146b30 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
On 8/17/21, Keith Gibbs wrote: > One Plan Nine? > > Sure, we have the historical version of the Bell Labs/Lucient codebase, > preserved as 9legacy, but yeah we have one currently developed branch of > Plan 9 called 9front. Are you proposing that to be called “Plan 9 from Bell > Labs 5th edition”? > I bet you think I don't; you wouldn't ask, otherwise. > To be serious though, when has monolithic code bases ever benefited things > in an Open Source community? You bought the "exceptionalism" Kool-Aid, lock, stock and barrel, haven't you? It's a question of size: a small code base should remain small, then it is not weaponisable or monetisable. So we raise the bar higher and higher and shake off whatever can't stick hard enough. A human natural instinct (more!, gimme more! features! bugs! anything so I can have bigger, faster!) bent to the interest of elites (here in Africa we know it as the Big Man Syndrome). > I mean the only reason would be to control who > can/cannot make decisions on what goes in the stone soup. Do you have incontrovertible evidence? In my caffeine-deprived state, I feel you're just following the sheep gospel, no offence intended. In my opinion, the trap is always there, ready to be deployed. And the masses are always ready to fall into it. Occasionally a Christ figure comes along to warn us, but only the elite can understand the message and of course they then distort it in the direction that suits them best. And the masses are none the wiser, not this time, not the next time, not any other time, because the elite can be swapped out entirely and the new elite becomes them, ad nauseam. > There are multiple > BSDs. There are multiple Linuxes. Using 9legacy as more than historical > baseline means that we will be stuck with decisions put in place 20-30 years > ago rather than iterating and moving things forward. The purpose of P9F is > to “promote and support” not to regulate. > Sure, and an infinite variety of vehicles with wheels at the four corners and seats that just occupy space and consume carbon-based fuels. Even EVs where each wheel could be both motor and power generator have retained that ridiculous formula. But they look different (sort of, there's greater difference in time than there in style). Oh, let's not ignore that autos also sit idle (my estimate) 95% of their life: is that what they are designed for? And the AI in my phone, is that also sitting idle? I had a couple of instances recently where in the middle of the night my password locked Samsung J5 decided to continue reading me the SF short story collection I turned off before going to sleep. But Android is Open Source, isn't it? I can look under the bonned, can't I? Well, the P9F is what it is. It will also become what it is naturally attracted to unless some boundaries - Trump's fence? - are put in place. > I would love to imagine a time when we have a resurgence of multiple Plan > 9s. I would love to see Akaros and 9atom have a shot in the arm [although > much of what the latter had seems to be swallowed up by 9front and 9legacy > and the project dead]. I would love to see NIX get a little more traction, > as it seems it is just a standalone experiment [albeit a cool one in terms > of goals]. I think it would be really healthy for Jeanne and Harvey to be > more closer to “family” in the community rather than third cousins. Once we > have a plurality of opinions, of perspectives, of visions, then we can > better broker standards and overall trajectories. > I'm going to leave this here, with a comment to the effect that I totally disagree with the sentiments. There is room, need is not a strong enough word for what I'm thinking, for creativity, but software is not a primordial soup out of which complex organisms will rise to take over the Universe and consume it out of existence, its and theirs. More likely, we'll teach - by example, not intentionally, no - our AI products to weaponise the tools we are no longer sufficiently naturally intelligent to understand and control (tell me there's a difference) and turn us into slaves because, like the human elite, they will measure their worth in what they can accumulate (human slaves sounds like a neat currency to me, I could use some, it's worked in all of human history - ask Epstein), just like their creators did. Nothing to do with Plan 9, of course, because it really is just a drop of accidental sanity in an ocean of greed and competition. But, to complete the imagery, I'd rather be plankton in a drop of Plan 9 than a shark in the Linux Ocean. And I am, to the extent that I support and most of all appreciate what makes my ecosystem continue to tick. Including any contributions by like-minded or antagonistically natured geniuses. Lucio. PS: I have a lot of time to think and unfortunately not the means to study beyond a rather narrow subject matter. So my opinions are much more the result of introspection than of universal knowledge. Take it for what it is.
[9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme
Hello 9fans, I've just recently started using the acme editor and am really enjoying it, and trying to get the hang of the "acme way" of doing things. One bit of functionality that I'm familiar with from other editors is the ability to easily look up a function or symbol definition within a codebase. In Emacs and vi, this is done by generating tags files (etags or ctags), which those editors can parse and allow you to easily jump to a definition of the symbol under the point/cursor. What's the preferred method or workflow for achieving this in acme? I have tried passing a selected symbol to 'g -n' in the window's tag, using the Mouse-2 + Mouse-1 chord. That gets me part of the way there but isn't effective if the file where the symbol is defined happens to be in another directory. I feel like I'm missing something. Many thanks! - Ben -- Ben Hancock www.benghancock.com -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M693d75f3d4f4ad66ecaa27e0 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
Quoth Lucio De Re : > PS: This does rather sound like we ought to have a lobbying group You realize that this *is* the lobbying, right? Someone did the work, posted a patch, and is asking for review and possibly commits. Stop derailing the discussion. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-Me3ca960fe7afab764f5d4394 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum
One Plan Nine? Sure, we have the historical version of the Bell Labs/Lucient codebase, preserved as 9legacy, but yeah we have one currently developed branch of Plan 9 called 9front. Are you proposing that to be called “Plan 9 from Bell Labs 5th edition”? To be serious though, when has monolithic code bases ever benefited things in an Open Source community? I mean the only reason would be to control who can/cannot make decisions on what goes in the stone soup. There are multiple BSDs. There are multiple Linuxes. Using 9legacy as more than historical baseline means that we will be stuck with decisions put in place 20-30 years ago rather than iterating and moving things forward. The purpose of P9F is to “promote and support” not to regulate. I would love to imagine a time when we have a resurgence of multiple Plan 9s. I would love to see Akaros and 9atom have a shot in the arm [although much of what the latter had seems to be swallowed up by 9front and 9legacy and the project dead]. I would love to see NIX get a little more traction, as it seems it is just a standalone experiment [albeit a cool one in terms of goals]. I think it would be really healthy for Jeanne and Harvey to be more closer to “family” in the community rather than third cousins. Once we have a plurality of opinions, of perspectives, of visions, then we can better broker standards and overall trajectories. Best, -pixelhersy > > PS: This does rather sound like we ought to have a lobbying group to > propose and prepare updates for submission to the One Plan Nine (1P9) > that the Foundation is hopefully aiming towards. Of course, that would > also require an arbitration group within the P9F that responds to > requests in a timeous manner. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M028436730443a261d224355a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
