Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[ori]

Quoth Demetrius Iatrakis :
> Only the device and refresh flows are supported. There is an
> implementation of the authorization code flow (tested on macOS) here:
> https://github.com/Mitsos101/plan9port/pull/1. However, it is not
> included in the module as there is no good browser to plumb the URL
> to.

Thinking about this a bit more, maybe the right option
is to just push this *all* the way to the unix side,
rather than trying to awkwardly straddle the gap:

ssh ori@unix oauth-login client_id=1234 | ipso -r

and then just relying on the refresh flow on plan9.

If unix is going to be involved one way or the other,
it seems like it may be best to follow that to the
logical conclusion, and leave all of the initial
token fetch live there, then let the refresh happen
within plan 9.

Also, I'm currently working on a upas/fs patch that
uses this work. I hope to have something this weekend.


--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M61de2eb3c44020e589f16480
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Lucio De Re]

On 8/19/21, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I never said it was *the* development branch.
>
> lol
>
> but it is.
>
Correct. On two fronts, to coin a phrase. It is active and it is well supported.

It is the pragmatic end of the Plan 9 spectrum, courtesy of Cinap who
clearly would be a Torvalds if Plan 9 had gained the traction of
Linux.

We are all lucky, in a somewhat masochistic sense, that Cinap is not
Torvalds and Plan 9 came a little late on the scene and was "licenced
to kill" itself. Wrong generation, that was, but for those who want
everything and the kitchen sink, Linux is by far more convenient: I am
typing this into Gmail's "basic HTML" in an obsolete and unsupported
version of 32-bit Chromium under Linux Mint. I guess it IS my
preference, even though I greatly regret that there aren't enough
seconds left in my universe to migrate everything I can to my Plan 9
network.

Which, given that this is a "philosophy" thread and both Rob and Russ
are on board at least occasionally, may entitle me to ask: my
understanding is that both R use P9P under a version of MacOS "du
jour". I rely on P9P to relieve some of my frustrations with Linux
(and there are hundreds, some go back to my NetBSD days) and in some
crazy way I would tolerate logging in to Rio and I am totally sold on
acme as my editor from my remote workstation to a suitably tweaked
development server 300km away (ssh -fX...). Hell, this saved my bacon
recently after a serious outage: "ssh -fX devbox acme -l acme.dump".
How do I reward R for their efforts? And what have they neglected to
contribute to the mental health of suffering people like me in the
last few years :-) ?

In any case, the point is not where I am, but where I come from and
where I wish to be.

I don't run Windows on my premises in any size or shape. I'll probably
regret dropping it from my (cheap, non-plan 9-compatible) HP laptop on
my most recent Linux Mint upgrade, but I have learnt what I can do
with GPT and it doesn't bug me in the least to run Windows on a USB-3
connection to my drive (haven't needed to do that, yet, I may have to
eat these words).

I don't want to run Linux, either, in principle. Now that I have to
think about it, I might not mind using Linux as a hypervisor and
everything else under KVM, but for now the only hardware I own that
supports Qemu-KVM is what I use for the Fossil/CPU server. If I can't
see Linux, I can deal with it. One way or another, though, Linux has
the ability to remind one frequently that it is in charge, in a manner
neither NetBSD nor Plan 9 do.

I don't see how I can create the seamless environment I seek by
glueing together divergent systems such as 9front, 9legacy (my kernel
I label 9miller, a version configured for my server and workstation,
32-bit X86 even though the server is the most advanced platform in my
network, short of my Samsung phone), P9P under NetBSD
(acme-over-remote-X works fine there, too) if these extremely
preferable platforms (and I excluded P9P under Linux, but in fact that
remains the main option, like right now, it's just the least
preferable) continue to diverge, nay, are encouraged to diverge.

And of course, the scarier possibility is that one or more of my
essential ingredients will slip beyond my equipment's ability to run
it. Already, Linux Mint 20.2 with Skype and Chrome is too much for
2GiB of memory in my laptop and I don't have the income that allows me
to keep up with hardware advances.

In summary, I am entirely contrary in attitude to Keith, because my
interest lies in smaller, not bigger (I keep hoping I can afford a
recent rPi model, but I can't entirely justify that, yet).

Another way to get my point across may be to point out that I have no
issue with improvements to Plan 9. Its philosophy is sound and
palatable, much more so than the monstrosities of Windows and Linux
that no sane individual should willingly enslave oneself to. Windows
is still extremely insecure and not even slightly open to a security
audit, although I bet the NSA has no qualms exploiting what the see as
security "features" from the comfort of a source licence paid for by
the U.S.'s subjects; Linux is bloated beyond comprehension and I'm
also not impressed with the OSS's approach to software quality.

But divergence is in no manner "improvement", it needs to be
negotiated back into the "core values". I appreciate that there are
various costs associated with such "upstreaming" and that is why I'm
suggesting that the P9F should take it on, identify the costs and also
arbitrate, from a position of common wisdom, what is "core" and what
is tangential. Note that "core" then becomes a future entity, not a
past one, in this case.

Note: 9fronters may well believe that outsiders refuse to grant them
an identity they feel they have worked hard at earning. What they seem
to miss that even though there may actually be an "inside", the
outside is not the homogenous enemy they paint us as. Interestingly,
what made 9front the success 

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Kurt H Maier]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 02:15:00PM +0300, Demetrius Iatrakis wrote:
> This is a preview of OAuth2 support in factotum, as part of this year's GSoC:
> https://github.com/Mitsos101/plan9front/pull/1
> 
> Installation, on 9front:
> 
> git/clone https://github.com/Mitsos101/plan9front plan9front-oauth
> cd plan9front-oauth
> git/branch oauth
> bind sys/include /sys/include
> @{cd sys/src/libauth && mk install}
> @{cd sys/src/cmd/auth && mk install}
> @{cd sys/src/cmd/webfs && mk install}

Works on my machine!  Have you been using it in the wild at all?  I'm
just testing it against a local set of toy programs, but it's working.

Thanks for working on this!

khm

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-Mf49b1642e0de517409cc600b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[6o205zd02]

I had never heard of acme-lsp and LSP (except as a Microsoft internal 
thing) until gabi mentioned it earlier in the thread.  I'm interesting 
in playing with acme-lsp for C++.  Which LSP server do you use for C/C++ 
(I see several listed at https://langserver.org/)?


    thanks,
    Peter

On 2021-08-18 02:26, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 
ole.hjalmar.kristensen-at-gmail.com |9fans| wrote:
On linux, you can run ctags -x and postprocess the file to append the 
line number to the file name instead of having i as a separate field. 
That way, you can locate the symbol in the tags file, and right-click 
on the file:linenumber.


Also, on linux, we have acme-lsp, which in principle works with any 
LSP server. I have tested it with go and C/C++.


On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:22 PM Ben Hancock > wrote:


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


*9fans * / 9fans / see discussions 
 + participants 
 + delivery options 
 Permalink 
 



--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M652caba65026de9632210a05
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[hiro]

> I never said it was *the* development branch.

lol

but it is.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mf113b7df339ddd9e3ca6e523
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Eli Cohen]

what is all the friction actually about here?? the most important
philosophical question always ends up the same, how can we figure out
a good formula for not being jerks?

I have ended up using 9front more and more, obviously. 9front was
started specifically to address the fact that Plan 9 from Bell Labs
didn't run on most computers... If I have any feeling at all about it,
it's that there's room for another fork that is an even simpler
research platform. in other discussions people say, why do we have
things that aren't relevant? We all love catclock, email... some users
may only want plan 9 for that... some people also discussed even
removing compiled binaries as much as possible. mostly, I like the
idea of plan 9 that runs on the computer I have... but I understand
that for a lot of reasons other people don't necessarily feel the same
way.

we wouldn't be here if we didn't agree Plan 9 is the best OS design.
and they're all free software. 9front has some very interesting things
that 9legacy can (and does) use as patches. it's just actually
difficult to write software, for some value of difficulty.

there's a lot of shit going on in the world today... we all gathered
here to agree Plan 9 is great software, then just be rude to each
other because...? I really don't understand, I'm not exaggerating.
what is the actual disagreement here?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here are some clarifications.
> 
> 9legacy used to be a an experimental patch queue for
> Plan 9 from Bell Labs, providing patches that were not
> yet accepted into the mainline distribution. That's why
> we didn't recommend to use 9legacy, unless you had
> specific needs.
> 
> However, this isn't really the case since 2015, because
> Plan 9 from Bell Labs is not maintained anymore
> (last release was 2015-01-10).
> 
> Today, 9legacy is more of a continuation of Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
> There are still experimental patches, but also a lot of fixes and
> improvements that would probably be part of Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> if it was still maintained.
> 
> Also, NIX is not maintained anymore. However, there are
> some other variants of 9k (the 64-bit Plan 9 kernel), including
> the one available as part of 9legacy, that are still in progress.
> 
> --
> David du Colombier

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Me55ae2eef0de0a39ecd205ad
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[David du Colombier]

Here are some clarifications.

9legacy used to be a an experimental patch queue for
Plan 9 from Bell Labs, providing patches that were not
yet accepted into the mainline distribution. That's why
we didn't recommend to use 9legacy, unless you had
specific needs.

However, this isn't really the case since 2015, because
Plan 9 from Bell Labs is not maintained anymore
(last release was 2015-01-10).

Today, 9legacy is more of a continuation of Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
There are still experimental patches, but also a lot of fixes and
improvements that would probably be part of Plan 9 from Bell Labs
if it was still maintained.

Also, NIX is not maintained anymore. However, there are
some other variants of 9k (the 64-bit Plan 9 kernel), including
the one available as part of 9legacy, that are still in progress.

-- 
David du Colombier

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mc9a3f2e566a1033cb9d790de
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[leimy2k via 9fans]

I don’t think the basic philosophy of Plan 9 and 9front really differ that much 
or in any deeply meaningful ways. I find 9front more usable for my needs. 
Sshnet works well, as does sshfs, and the smaller changes to the behaviors of 
Sam, rio RC shell windows etc (ctrl-b especially) seem to make a rather big 
difference to usability. Should there be an “upstream” relationship here? I 
honestly can’t tell.

The confluence of the forks isn’t clear, and flow depends on where one stands 
it seems.

The only negative outcome of forking is if we get to the point we can no longer 
share I think. Some investment in compatibility seems wise.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mdf57cc50805611bffb0c569b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Sigrid Solveig Haflínudóttir]

Quoth Stuart Morrow :
> > No. The base system would then have two completely different ways to set 
> > font.
> 
> Although looking up the font is pretty centralised (in initdraw) so
> who actually cares what the specific mechanism is.

My theming hacks do nothing about fonts.  VGA is the only official
font officially approved by the official 9front foundation, anyway.


--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M4a168306129f9c950ec27764
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Stuart Morrow]

> No. The base system would then have two completely different ways to set font.

Although looking up the font is pretty centralised (in initdraw) so
who actually cares what the specific mechanism is.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-Me6ad8e3db1270a4b24e18f72
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Ben Hancock]

Hi all,

My sincere thanks to everyone on the thread for their helpful tips and 
perspective, with special gratitude to Rob Pike for sharing his handy 
scripts -- and for creating sam and acme!


Best,

- Ben

--
Ben Hancock
www.benghancock.com

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-Me89c407474e415c5457260c5
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Stuart Morrow]

On 18/08/2021, Keith Gibbs  wrote:
> Hell, there are cool things I wish were 9front [unless they were snuck in],
> like some of sigrid's keyboard system tweaks and theming hacks.

No. The base system would then have two completely different ways to set font.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M202bed62fdeef4425950107f
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Ethan Gardener]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 10:18 AM, Keith Gibbs wrote:
> 
> And tools die or are replaced over time.  8 1⁄2 was the standard in Plan 9, 
> but due to it’s limitations and quirks, a new one was written from scratch. 
> Now we, 30 years later, are arguing that every line of code handed down from 
> our honoured and sainted forebears is gospel truth? Really? 

Oh dear! This old argument is getting heated again? I don't miss the old flame 
wars.  But I think the old wars had a somewhat different motive.  Some people 
argued furiously for the "One True Plan 9" and against forks, but as soon as 
the last Plan 9 maintainer left the remains of Bell Labs, most of them just 
stopped posting.  (So did some nicer people.)  They were evidently arguing for 
a maintained system, but they also seemed to be opposed to almost all change.  
Perhaps they were opposed to all change which didn't suit themselves, but the 
more I recall, the less rational these people seem to be.  Sometimes, they'd 
even be furious with someone for doing the very thing they'd told him to do.  
"If you want it, do it yourself," so the person would put a lot of effort in to 
do it, and then they'd be furious with him.  The earliest such incident I know 
of goes back to the very people who developed Plan 9.  With this history, I 
don't particularly want to honor the original Plan 9 and would hate to see the 
wars rekindled.

All the same, there is a surprising practical consideration:

> I think what you are confusing is that since I (and many others, whether on 
> the 9front side or no) want to see Plan 9 evolve and grow, that somehow that 
> will ruin *your* Plan 9.

Unfortunately, this is a more difficult issue than you might think.  If someone 
is reliant on a particular fork and doesn't have the time, energy, or skills to 
make alterations as needed, they can be hurt by changes, even surprisingly 
small changes.  Changing Rio's scrolling behaviour might be trivial, but at a 
time when I was heavily dependent on a particular scrolling behaviour, 9front 
changed it and I had no free time or energy to even think about how to change 
it back.  I switched to an older version of Rio, but then I missed a different 
fix 9front had made.

The more I think about it, the more I think I'd like 9legacy's approach of 
patches over a relatively static system, but I haven't actually tried it and I 
certainly wouldn't want to limit anyone else's choices.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T6899bf3f0654295d-M284a39c35a7dc1abec2c8cb8
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Keith Gibbs]

> On 18. Aug 2021, at 14.28, Lucio De Re  wrote:
> Let me put it this way: German and Italian motorcycle manufacturers
> eventually figured that the gear shift should be on the same side as
> Japanese manufacturers preferred.

This is my point exactly in one sense. In your example, there were alternate 
designs, and the German and Italian manufacturers conformed to the Japanese 
ones not by the Motorcycle Gearshift Foundation (MGF) sounding off on it or 
imposing a design for a “One Motorcycle Gearshift” [1MG] initiative. Instead, 
the experience of users and/or the better ergonomics of the design and/or 
functional logic dictated it was easier to just make them the same. 

Thought exercise: Fast forward 5 years from now… the NIX project delivers on a 
new version of the Plan 9 kernel that is brilliantly optimised for 
multicore/multinode distributed computing. Within a few weeks, 9front says, 
“this is the dopest thing ever” and folds it into their fork, along with some 
monkeying they have done to the kernel. Both get a shot in popularity and draw 
additional people into the Plan 9 community space. People develop software with 
this set of features in mind.

Let’s even say that the P9F takes leave of their senses and dictates a new Plan 
9 from Bell Labs V5, which is basically 9legacy with standard patches and a 
version number. Great. Would “official” Plan 9 want to take in the cool 
addition to be more compatible with closely related peers or would people balk 
about the other distress “not contributing to common cross-compatibility” and 
come up with it’s own thing and stick to their own thing. I would venture the 
former would happen for the same reason in your motorcycle example. 

> What I am proposing is that where some code will run on one flavour of
> Plan 9 and not on another, which is annoying, that somebody be
> entrusted with the common sense to suggest which of two
> implementations should be favoured and for what reasons.

In the case of plurality, you have a push and pull, where people may 
intentionally make a departure from compatibility for the sake of bettering 
things. That is a risk, sure, but that is where you get growth. And if it is 
the best, since it is free and open source, the better code can be worked into 
sister projects. It’s like when there is a win, everyone can win. And mind you, 
most software is more about different tastes, workflows, etc. and don’t affect 
capital C “Compatibility”.

Similarly, a breaking change could be a problem and could even harm a project 
in the long term. That is where the risk comes in. 

> It seems to me that the paranoid individualist assumes malice behind
> such an obvious proposal.

I’m not sure malice is the right word. It is “motive”. It is clear you don’t 
like 9front as a distribution. That is your choice. But this isn’t the first 
time you have either directly or indirectly brought up the desire to propose 
that there should be a single Plan 9 and that what is official is dictated by 
editorial decision by a governing body. 

We obviously have very different views on top down vs bottom up development. 
However, most OSS development comes from a volunteer putting out a pull request 
that he or she things would make things better or a little standalone tool that 
people could find useful. The absense of authority, even in your motorcycle 
example, is not chaos. We have a community with some very smart and talented 
people. 

-pixelheresy

> Lucio.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-Mdec4678ae5d02a14e4d6de91
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Lucio De Re]

Yoh!

What can I say?

I kind of cherish being so wildly misrepresented. At least I'm taken
seriously, even if totally misunderstood.

Lucio.

On 8/18/21, Keith Gibbs  wrote:
> Come, come, Vester. Please don’t introduce false premises under the guise of
> calling them out. I never said that. 9front as the official Plan 9 would be
> pretty absurd.
>
> I never said it was *the* development branch. It is *a* development branch.
> I could even imagine that it may in fact be the most popular and active for
> those wishing to develop new software on (with 9miller being very popular as
> well).
>
> If fact, I noted other projects... other Plan 9s as well in my initial and
> my response to Lucio. I was merely pointing out that Lucio in the past and
> in the OAuth thread keeps introducing the idea that the P9F should impose
> order and wall off everything but 9legacy [which he implies is the official
> one], even to the point of arguing in the past that 9front developers should
> port changes that are “good for the community” or some such to the “actual”
> Plan 9.
>
> Instea the charter for P9F's language was written to be inclusive. Why?
> Because historically this mailing list/community has been host to discussion
> for 9legacy, 9atom, 9front, p9p, etc. Even Inferno or Harvey come up
> semi-regularly. As such, it is not outside the general understanding of
> “Plan 9” as encompassing a wider berth. Although many of the P9F folk are
> contributors to 9legacy, I think they know that the community is broader and
> want all of it to be “Plan 9”.
>
> So in the end, I apologise if it was unclear or confusing that I suggested
> to Lucio that 9front was to be "Plan 9 from Bell Labs Version 5”. It was a
> joke and everything I wrote following that should have made that very clear
> that I was arguing *specifically* for a plurality of Plan 9s rather than a
> single one [which Lucio was advocating for]. Lucio seems to hate 9front
> specifically for some reason, so the initial statement was intended as
> tongue in cheek.
>
> Both 9legacy and 9front serve important niche functions within Plan 9 space,
> but neither *are* Plan 9. There is only one “official” Plan 9 and that was
> last updated January 2015. 9legacy positions itself as patch set on top of
> V4, but wants to maintain it in such a way that V4 will always function as
> V4. 9legacy maintains that it is not a fork. 9front says explicitly that it
> is a fork of V4 and a continuation based on it’s core principles. Both have
> fed into each other’s ecosystems. Hell, 9legacy’s site even says to run Plan
> 9 from Bell Labs rather than 9legacy if possible, which is kind of funny.
> And NIX is still active, last I heard, but currently has a closed community,
> not to mention Harvey and Jeanne.
>
> So my main point was that we have a plurality and we *should* continue to
> have a plurality. Much like Lucio would find 9front as being blessed as “the
> official one true Plan 9” repugnant, so too would others re: 9legacy. A fair
> swathe of the Plan 9 enthusiast community want to build and evolve and a
> fair swathe want to preserve and maintain, with some incremental quality of
> life tweaks added in, and *both are totally valid*.
>
> -pixelheresy
>
>> On 18. Aug 2021, at 13.13, vic.thac...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>>
>> Starting from a false premise does not help. 9front is not a development
>> branch of Plan 9. Plan 9 is Plan 9. 9front is 9front. 9front is an
>> open-source fork or derivation of Plan 9.
>>
>> Trying to make 9front the new and official Plan 9 does seem absurd. I'm
>> not sure why there is a strong need for validation. 9front does not need
>> official recognition. Let 9front be what it is. It can exist independent
>> of the Plan 9 name.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Vester
>>


-- 
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/T9ef6430f3025e731-M0953d9d310af6d87fb35fcff
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Lucio De Re]

On 8/18/21, vic.thac...@fastmail.fm  wrote:
> Trying to make 9front the new and official Plan 9 does seem absurd. I'm not
> sure why there is a strong need for validation. 9front does not need
> official recognition. Let 9front be what it is. It can exist independent of
> the Plan 9 name.
>
The exact phrasing may not be my choice, but broadly I agree with that
sentiment. Where incompatibilities exist, they can be worked around,
but only if cooperation and not competition is the approach.

And if cooperation is the approach, then minimising incompatibilities
will be one common objective.

Lucio.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M27deaa7047f5187005d97c77
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Keith Gibbs]

Come, come, Vester. Please don’t introduce false premises under the guise of 
calling them out. I never said that. 9front as the official Plan 9 would be 
pretty absurd.

I never said it was *the* development branch. It is *a* development branch. I 
could even imagine that it may in fact be the most popular and active for those 
wishing to develop new software on (with 9miller being very popular as well). 

If fact, I noted other projects... other Plan 9s as well in my initial and my 
response to Lucio. I was merely pointing out that Lucio in the past and in the 
OAuth thread keeps introducing the idea that the P9F should impose order and 
wall off everything but 9legacy [which he implies is the official one], even to 
the point of arguing in the past that 9front developers should port changes 
that are “good for the community” or some such to the “actual” Plan 9. 

Instea the charter for P9F's language was written to be inclusive. Why? Because 
historically this mailing list/community has been host to discussion for 
9legacy, 9atom, 9front, p9p, etc. Even Inferno or Harvey come up 
semi-regularly. As such, it is not outside the general understanding of “Plan 
9” as encompassing a wider berth. Although many of the P9F folk are 
contributors to 9legacy, I think they know that the community is broader and 
want all of it to be “Plan 9”.

So in the end, I apologise if it was unclear or confusing that I suggested to 
Lucio that 9front was to be "Plan 9 from Bell Labs Version 5”. It was a joke 
and everything I wrote following that should have made that very clear that I 
was arguing *specifically* for a plurality of Plan 9s rather than a single one 
[which Lucio was advocating for]. Lucio seems to hate 9front specifically for 
some reason, so the initial statement was intended as tongue in cheek.

Both 9legacy and 9front serve important niche functions within Plan 9 space, 
but neither *are* Plan 9. There is only one “official” Plan 9 and that was last 
updated January 2015. 9legacy positions itself as patch set on top of V4, but 
wants to maintain it in such a way that V4 will always function as V4. 9legacy 
maintains that it is not a fork. 9front says explicitly that it is a fork of V4 
and a continuation based on it’s core principles. Both have fed into each 
other’s ecosystems. Hell, 9legacy’s site even says to run Plan 9 from Bell Labs 
rather than 9legacy if possible, which is kind of funny. And NIX is still 
active, last I heard, but currently has a closed community, not to mention 
Harvey and Jeanne.

So my main point was that we have a plurality and we *should* continue to have 
a plurality. Much like Lucio would find 9front as being blessed as “the 
official one true Plan 9” repugnant, so too would others re: 9legacy. A fair 
swathe of the Plan 9 enthusiast community want to build and evolve and a fair 
swathe want to preserve and maintain, with some incremental quality of life 
tweaks added in, and *both are totally valid*.

-pixelheresy

> On 18. Aug 2021, at 13.13, vic.thac...@fastmail.fm wrote:
> 
> Starting from a false premise does not help. 9front is not a development 
> branch of Plan 9. Plan 9 is Plan 9. 9front is 9front. 9front is an 
> open-source fork or derivation of Plan 9.  
> 
> Trying to make 9front the new and official Plan 9 does seem absurd. I'm not 
> sure why there is a strong need for validation. 9front does not need official 
> recognition. Let 9front be what it is. It can exist independent of the Plan 9 
> name. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Vester 
> 

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M381a2c5d54ec68175eb453d4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Lucio De Re]

On 8/18/21, Skip Tavakkolian  wrote:
> I changed the Subject line to better reflect the discussion. Please do go
> on.
>
Let me put it this way: German and Italian motorcycle manufacturers
eventually figured that the gear shift should be on the same side as
Japanese manufacturers preferred.

What I am proposing is that where some code will run on one flavour of
Plan 9 and not on another, which is annoying, that somebody be
entrusted with the common sense to suggest which of two
implementations should be favoured and for what reasons.

It seems to me that the paranoid individualist assumes malice behind
such an obvious proposal.

Lucio.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M23c61c84f53dede4954ace32
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Lucio De Re]

On 8/18/21, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is that my cue, are you calling in my services?!
>
If you have any actual understanding of factotum, *I* could easily
gain from consulting such knowledge to scratch some of my immediate
itches, as I'm no expert and factotum is only slowly revealing its
secrets to me. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the money to
"call in your services".

If this is aimed at the P9F, I cannot possibly speak for them, I can
only hope that they share at least some of my own aims.

Lucio.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T9ef6430f3025e731-M655b399ffe88b07e7eeba62a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[vic . thacker]

Starting from a false premise does not help. 9front is not a development branch 
of Plan 9. Plan 9 is Plan 9. 9front is 9front. 9front is an open-source fork or 
derivation of Plan 9.  

Trying to make 9front the new and official Plan 9 does seem absurd. I'm not 
sure why there is a strong need for validation. 9front does not need official 
recognition. Let 9front be what it is. It can exist independent of the Plan 9 
name. 

Sincerely,
Vester 

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 16:02, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> I changed the Subject line to better reflect the discussion. Please do go on.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:57 PM Lucio De Re  wrote:
> >
> > 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 

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[Keith Gibbs]

Sorry for posting the other to the original title. Was authoring it prior to 
your subject change and sent it after. 

Will happily reply to this thread if it continues. 

But in the meantime, you can lock me in the stocks and throw fruit ;). 

-pixelheresy 

> On 18 Aug 2021, at 10:04, Skip Tavakkolian  wrote:
> 
> I changed the Subject line to better reflect the discussion. Please do go on.
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:57 PM Lucio De Re  wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

On linux, you can run ctags -x and postprocess the file to append the line
number to the file name instead of having i as a separate field. That way,
you can locate the symbol in the tags file, and right-click on the
file:linenumber.

Also, on linux, we have acme-lsp, which in principle works with any LSP
server. I have tested it with go and C/C++.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:22 PM Ben Hancock  wrote:

> 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-Mb6807aa0e9520cbbc2e097ad
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Rob Pike]

% cat bin/f
#!/bin/sh

9 grep -i -n '^func (\([^)]+\) )?'$1'\(' *.go /dev/null
% cat bin/t
#!/bin/sh

9 grep -i -n '^type '$1' ' *.go /dev/null

% cat bin/cf
#!/bin/sh

csearch -n -f '\.go$' '^func (\([^)]+\) )?'$1'\('
% cat bin/ct
#!/bin/sh

csearch -n -f '\.go$' '^type '$1

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-Mbdc5ec4006124565e51d51f5
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] OAuth2 in factotum

[Keith Gibbs]

Lucio, man, you are a comic genius. 

> On 18. Aug 2021, at 6.55, Lucio De Re  wrote:
> 
> 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).

No. Instead, I argue (being involved in OSS and communities for nearly 25 years 
at this point), diversity builds strength. New tools are always good, 
especially when well made and optional. Drop in replacements to standard ones 
are amazing and push toward innovation. Overhauls of core functionality or 
extending even the kernel [although tricky at times] can lead to massive leaps 
in the usefulness of the system. How is Plan 9 different, now that it is open 
source and developed entirely by volunteers?

Linux is easy to point to for examples… Having mulitiple configuration/boot 
managers (init, systemd, uselessd, etc.) allows individual distributions (as 
well as users) make choices about ease vs. cleanliness, kitchen sink vs. sharp 
tool. It also puts accountability for the bigger one [systemd] not be as much 
of a bloated mess as it was a few years back, since more users = more distros = 
more people demanding it not to be an inefficient Rube Goldberg machine.

And tools die or are replaced over time.  8 1⁄2 was the standard in Plan 9, but 
due to it’s limitations and quirks, a new one was written from scratch. Now we, 
30 years later, are arguing that every line of code handed down from our 
honoured and sainted forebears is gospel truth? Really? 

Even if we are looking at minimalism, we can have evolution, variety and change 
over time. Even beyond suckless.org  “suckless” tools 
there are quite a few derivatives that operate on similar principals. There is 
a dmenu replacement (rofi) that is a little fatter than the base compile, but 
is actually a cleaner, tighter implementation if you typically run various 
patches and adding to dmenu. Is it better? Maybe. Its is less minimalist? Not 
if you frequently add other search patches to dmenu. Is it a choice? Sure. Will 
over time one win out over the other? Who knows. 

I think what you are confusing is that since I (and many others, whether on the 
9front side or no) want to see Plan 9 evolve and grow, that somehow that will 
ruin *your* Plan 9. That is the same argument political conservatives make 
about all sorts of things about society. They fear change and fear that any 
growth, modification, or democratisation of these things will lead to 
corruption or degeneration [often seen as “degeneracy” in political/societal 
contexts]. Instead, I argue that you keep 9legacy or 9miller or whatever you 
*personally* feel is “pure” and godly enough and let people build this. Even in 
the thread you seem to articulate a tension between liking Demetrius’ cool work 
[or insistence on other people porting patches for 9legacy for you^H^H^Hthe 
community in the past] and wanting a definitive body for absolute blessing of 
features/code changes/etc. 

If Demetrius releases the Oath tool in it’s finished form in the near feature 
and it is awesome, need it being included in the default install of any Plan 9? 
Could be it a standalone package or patch for some and built into others? Also, 
what would it *mean* to have an approving body for One Plan 9. Does that mean 
that people like cinap, ori, or sigrid [who frequently contribute to 9front as 
well as releasing independent tools and software] are beholden to some 
committee decision? Do you understand how Open Source works?

Accusations of “exceptionalism” are completely unfounded, since I like the idea 
of people having preferences and different workflows. acme exists, so should we 
delete sam? No, cos sam is better for some things and for some people. Should 
someone rework sam to not have the annoying double snarf buffer thing [because, 
as I recall, Rob Pike wanted to hack around potential lag between the term and 
a remote sam instance and never went back to it]? I think probably. The only 
bias I have is toward newer code, to be honest. Not new features, but new 
takes. New fixes. New implementations that allow for flexibility of use that 
were most likely never conceived of initially. The Plan 9 team at Bell Labs (or 
Lucient) never had a problem monkeying with the guts of the OS [still sticking 
to their guns regarding minimalist design sensibilities], but now, for whatever 
reason, that needs to be tamped down or highly controlled?

Hell, there are cool things I wish were 9front [unless they were snuck in], 
like some of sigrid's keyboard system tweaks and theming hacks. Or mycroftiv’s 
extra namespace aliasing stuff from ANTS. 

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Gabriel Diaz Lopez de la Llave via 9fans]

Hello

You might be interested in  which 
implements a laguange server protocol client for acme.


gabi

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:12, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> 
wrote:

 If you really need to work with extremely
 complex codebases you likely won't find success using plan9 at all.


When I need to scrabble around in the go source tree, I usually have
something like this in a window (it could go in an acme guide file)

grep -n 'func XXX' `{du -a | awk '/\.go$/ {print $2}'} .

which I edit and execute as needed.



--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-Mce7cbdc1e9a228a51d608ea7
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Nick Owens]

that's a long winded way of saying 'use the plumber'

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 23:54 sirjofri  wrote:

> Hello Ben,
>
> 17.08.2021 22:22:09 Ben Hancock :
> > 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.
>
> The original developers of Plan 9 software were people who made simple
> things even simpler so they can understand them. Imagine your codebase is
> so small that you can know many symbols and have other symbols open or at
> least know where to look. Using g(rep) in the parent directory of your
> project and your brain should be enough. If it isn't your project might
> be too complex/large.
>
> (That's different when reading other code or revisiting code after a long
> time, but then you are supposed to read it again so you can understand it
> anyway.)
>
> > 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.
> 
> I doubt you are missing something. People used to use text editor since
> there were no IDEs, and keep in mind that the core of unix was written
> with ed, maybe even on teletypes. It's like writing code on paper, and it
> works.
> 
> My advise is, read and produce good clean code. If you need syntax
> highlighting and fancy IDE stuff your codebase is probably too large.
> With more training you can work with larger codebases, but still they to
> keep it simple and small. If you really need to work with extremely
> complex codebases you likely won't find success using plan9 at all.
> 
> Many plan9 tools are one C file only. In acme you can jump between
> selected text by right clicking it, which works very well in these cases.
> Right clicking included files opens them and you can search there. These
> are basically the tools you have.
> 
> I'm personally very happy reading man pages and searching the plan 9
> source with g(rep) and plumbing the results.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Oh, and you can always write your own tools and call them using
> middle-click in acme. You could write an rc-script that cd..s to your
> project home directory (if it's a git repo, the one containing .git) and
> invokes g, for example.
> 
> sirjofri

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M8b0bad52403f628bb89eebec
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[Richard Miller]

> If you really need to work with extremely 
> complex codebases you likely won't find success using plan9 at all.

When I need to scrabble around in the go source tree, I usually have
something like this in a window (it could go in an acme guide file)

grep -n 'func XXX' `{du -a | awk '/\.go$/ {print $2}'} .

which I edit and execute as needed.


--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M6dcc6863b957346e931b418a
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Software philosophy

[hiro]

is that my cue, are you calling in my services?!

On 8/18/21, Skip Tavakkolian  wrote:
> I changed the Subject line to better reflect the discussion. Please do go
> on.
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:57 PM Lucio De Re  wrote:
>>
>> 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 

[9fans] Software philosophy

[Skip Tavakkolian]

I changed the Subject line to better reflect the discussion. Please do go on.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:57 PM Lucio De Re  wrote:
>
> 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 

Re: [9fans] Codebase navigation and using tags files in acme

[sirjofri]

Hello Ben,

17.08.2021 22:22:09 Ben Hancock :
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.


The original developers of Plan 9 software were people who made simple 
things even simpler so they can understand them. Imagine your codebase is 
so small that you can know many symbols and have other symbols open or at 
least know where to look. Using g(rep) in the parent directory of your 
project and your brain should be enough. If it isn't your project might 
be too complex/large.


(That's different when reading other code or revisiting code after a long 
time, but then you are supposed to read it again so you can understand it 
anyway.)


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.


I doubt you are missing something. People used to use text editor since 
there were no IDEs, and keep in mind that the core of unix was written 
with ed, maybe even on teletypes. It's like writing code on paper, and it 
works.


My advise is, read and produce good clean code. If you need syntax 
highlighting and fancy IDE stuff your codebase is probably too large. 
With more training you can work with larger codebases, but still they to 
keep it simple and small. If you really need to work with extremely 
complex codebases you likely won't find success using plan9 at all.


Many plan9 tools are one C file only. In acme you can jump between 
selected text by right clicking it, which works very well in these cases. 
Right clicking included files opens them and you can search there. These 
are basically the tools you have.


I'm personally very happy reading man pages and searching the plan 9 
source with g(rep) and plumbing the results.


I hope this helps.

Oh, and you can always write your own tools and call them using 
middle-click in acme. You could write an rc-script that cd..s to your 
project home directory (if it's a git repo, the one containing .git) and 
invokes g, for example.


sirjofri

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf8ceac12df9da674-M01a99fa6f5ef08418c3e312f
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription