Re: [9fans] focus window on plumb

2018-09-03 Thread umbraticus
Even simpler, run the following program in riostart thus:

window 'raiseplumb web & mothra'
window 'raiseplumb edit & sam'


could probably even be an rc script

#include 
#include 
#include 

void
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
Plumbmsg *m;
int port, wctl;

if(argc != 2)
sysfatal("usage: %s port", argv[0]);
if((port = plumbopen(argv[1], OREAD)) < 0)
sysfatal("couldn't open plumb port %s", argv[1]);
if((wctl = open("/dev/wctl", OWRITE)) < 0)
sysfatal("couldn't open /dev/wctl");
for(;;){
if((m = plumbrecv(port)) == nil)
sysfatal("error on plumb port %s", argv[1]);
plumbfree(m);
fprint(wctl, "unhide");
fprint(wctl, "current");
}
}

umbraticus



Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?"

2018-09-03 Thread Ethan Gardener
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Chris McGee wrote:
> While the idea that many eyes makes bugs shallower seems to have failed 
> in the world of complex behemoth software it may work here.

I think it worked for a while, but eventually complexity grew beyond even the 
many eyes approach.



Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?"

2018-09-03 Thread Chris McGee
Thanks everyone. This is pretty much what I expected was the case. I just 
wanted to confirm my understanding.

Plan 9 C was re-engineered with some
focus on readable code. Readability is expected to make bugs more apparent, 
making it less “dangerous.” Linux is so huge and hard to read that even simple 
things like C have become sharp edges that cut people. While the idea that many 
eyes makes bugs shallower seems to have failed in the world of complex behemoth 
software it may work here.

I’ve read some of the 9front kernel code trying to make it work on raspberry 
pi. I admit that I didn’t find any bugs at that time. The code is relatively 
easy to follow even for me. So, I suppose it’s working nicely.

Chris

> On Sep 3, 2018, at 12:07 AM, Lucio De Re  wrote:
> 
>> On 9/2/18, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "prevailing wisdom" sounds like an oxymoron.
>> 
> Yes, real wisdom is for some (evolutionary? counter-evolutionary?)
> reason unlikely to prevail.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Lucio.
>