On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM, sqweek wrote:
> You're not in much
> of a position to mock if you download code marked proof of concept
> expecting it to be production ready...
You must not read this list as much as I thought :-)
ron
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:06 AM, C H Forsyth wrote:
>> "Alright, my x86-64 board arrived! I wanted to try out some other
>>OSes, what have we here... hmm Plan 9, seems interesting... aw, no
>>native port! Guess I'll try losethos."
>
> the current amd64 port was just to get going, and it also
> che
> "Alright, my x86-64 board arrived! I wanted to try out some other
>OSes, what have we here... hmm Plan 9, seems interesting... aw, no
>native port! Guess I'll try losethos."
the current amd64 port was just to get going, and it also
checked that the compiler could compile a running kernel.
it has
On Thu Dec 18 13:08:15 EST 2008, sqw...@gmail.com wrote:
> No no no, this is all release oriented stuff! Just put the code up so
> if someone really interested happens by they can check it out and work
> the details out themselves. What's the disadvantage there?
i think you have to understand tha
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Steve Simon wrote:
>> I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate a disadvantage of doing so.
>
> the problems with publishing code is you have to:
>write the manual
>document the install process
>remove all the debug cruft that you where leaving just
> I AGREE it would be lovely to have an AMD64 kernel for pure kudos reasons
> (my OS has 64 bits and yours doesn't), BUT, I completely understand why those
> working on it don't want to release it until they are ready.
I wish I had been able to put it so well - quoting the absolute
minimum, the re
> And we do have a sword hanging over our heads: we've got to get Plan 9
> on the top 500 in 2009 or the DOE aspect of this may all go bust. So
> you're looking at 9 years (feels like 90!) of pushing on strings with
> a pretty hard deliverable next year.
Could you elaborate on "the top 500"? And
> I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate a disadvantage of doing so.
the problems with publishing code is you have to:
write the manual
document the install process
remove all the debug cruft that you where leaving just in case
field emails about how it:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM, wrote:
>Ron needed the
> software and Ron got it, whatever it took him to achieve this. Can
> you spot the difference?]
It's a bit more than that: I saw a need starting in 2000, with the
initial open source release; I gave talks to anyone who would listen
in DO
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:42 PM, wrote:
>sqweek wrote:
>> What risk?
>
> Untested and/or incomplete kernel changes?
I'm not seeing the issue?
We're not talking about dumping random stuff into the /sys/ of
unsuspecting users here, the matter at hand is simply the availability
of the code to in
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM, sqweek wrote:
> Yes, uriel's manner is abrasive, and it gets old listening to him
> make the same complaints over and over.
>when uriel perceives an inhibitor to plan 9's growth and development,
>uriel raises his voice (because no one else will!).
The interesti
On Thu Dec 18 06:44:58 EST 2008, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, wrote:
> >> Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely?
> >
> > What risk?
>
> Untested and/or incomplete kernel changes?
i don't think that's the main risk, though that i
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, wrote:
>> Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely?
>
> What risk?
Untested and/or incomplete kernel changes?
++L
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, wrote:
> Or, for that matter, evaluate the risk of releasing it prematurely?
What risk?
-sqweek
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, wrote:
>> Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle,
>> without him having any practical need for them.
>
> I don't see why uriel having a practical need for them or not is
> relevant.
Well, let me try to explain it. Uriel is _not_ a
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, wrote:
> Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle,
> without him having any practical need for them.
I don't see why uriel having a practical need for them or not is
relevant. I see the relevant question as "does /anyone/ in the
communi
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:55:50PM -0500, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:
>> It would be a bit of work but definitely feasible if there's interest.
>
> +1
Out of scope in my case, but the logistics interest me greatly.
Please keep me in the loop.
++L
No, '+1' means that he agrees and supports the quoted statement.
uriel
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:04 AM, wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:55:50PM -0500, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:
>>> It would be a bit of work but definitely feasible if there's interest.
>>
>> +1
>
> I presume by this that
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:55:50PM -0500, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:
>> It would be a bit of work but definitely feasible if there's interest.
>
> +1
I presume by this that you were able to get devtrace working? Did you
find the documentation sufficiently clear? Any problems?
John
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:55:50PM -0500, j...@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:
> It would be a bit of work but definitely feasible if there's interest.
+1
pgpTOmxdMaiBS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>> In fact, one could actually look at what John released
>> *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an
>> idea.
>
> Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle,
> without him having any practical need for them. He lands up sounding
> like a peevish
Yea, stupid retarded moron I am to give a fuck about the welfare of
Plan 9 and its future.
After all, I have only invested I don't know how many hundreds of
hours of my life in it...
uriel
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:52 AM, wrote:
>> In fact, one could actually look at what John released
>> *bef
> In fact, one could actually look at what John released
> *before* posting to this list and making oneself look silly. It's an
> idea.
Uriel is renowned for demanding tools to be released on principle,
without him having any practical need for them. He lands up sounding
like a peevish, ungratefu
2008/12/17 ron minnich :
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Uriel wrote:
>> Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/.
>
> OK, I am only responding to this because of the incorrect impressions
> being left by these kinds of comments.
>
> The backport John did is to the standard
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>
> "The Masses are Revolting!"
>
"You said it! They stink on ice!"
-History of the World, Part I.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Uriel wrote:
> Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/.
OK, I am only responding to this because of the incorrect impressions
being left by these kinds of comments.
The backport John did is to the standard kernel that you all can get
on your
Didn't know the amd64 kernel doesn't live in /sys/src/9/pc/.
Sorry, I should have guessed that
/sys/src/9/not-for-the-unworthy-unwashed-masses/ was much more likely
location.
Peace
uriel
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:55 PM, wrote:
> This source is backported to the PC kernel in /sys/src/9/pc.
>
This source is backported to the PC kernel in /sys/src/9/pc.
The instructions make this abundantly clear, what with all
the stuff being done in /sys/src/9/pc.
John
> Does it work now with non-amd64 kernels?
>
> Peace
>
> uriel
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM, wrote:
>> Devtrace is ready
Does it work now with non-amd64 kernels?
Peace
uriel
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:36 PM, wrote:
> Devtrace is ready for your consumption, hot out of the
> oven and juicy fresh. The source is at
> /n/sources/contrib/john/devtrace-backport.tgz
> which includes all the necessary source files, the ma
Devtrace is ready for your consumption, hot out of the
oven and juicy fresh. The source is at
/n/sources/contrib/john/devtrace-backport.tgz
which includes all the necessary source files, the man
page (troff), and instructions for putting it in the
kernel and compiling.
Remember, this isn't mine al
30 matches
Mail list logo
