The computer has a 100 MHz CPU with
some 48 MB RAM. fossil hogs all
processing power. kfs on the other hand
is wonderfully stable and low maintenance.
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
re: when users leave
I think the labs policy was to change the name of the user from
frank:frank
to
was-frank:frank
the first name is what is used by auth and is reported by dirstat()
the seccond name is what is held on the disk (ken fs uses integers here).
Beware: this is from
Hello,
I played with this simple program, which just sets the raw mode for
the console and writes back written characters:
--
#include u.h
#include libc.h
void
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int cfd;
charbuf[2];
int nr;
cfd =
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
surely that's trivially fixable.
For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
performance.
cwfs is the only user-mode fs that hits 3
On Sunday, May 16, 2010, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
surely that's trivially fixable.
For me, those two factors alone make up for any
On 16 May 2010, at 14:38, erik quanstrom wrote:
kfs limits filenames to 28 characters, which can be a source of
irritation if you import files or save mail attachments from other
systems.
surely that's trivially fixable.
i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it's not clear to me that this is gentoo's fault. linux and
gnu together are one heck of a difficult place for
a distribution to live. but replicating portage would seem
to me to be a big
i was looking at the source a few days ago. if i remember right the 64-
bit version of kfs supports 56-character file names.
there is no 64-bit version of kfs.
for ken's fs the default is 56. you can set it to whatever you'd like.
the aoe-supporting version in my contrib and on 9atom is the
Oh yeah - someone kindly hosted the current draft (v. 0.2) here:
http://mirror.9grid.fr/mirror.9grid.fr/plan9-cpu-auth-server-howto.html
Yes, it's me. I hosted it since your website disappeared.
I think this kind of documentation is always useful for new users.
--
David du Colombier
On 16 May 2010, at 15:03, erik quanstrom wrote:
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it's not clear to me that this is gentoo's fault. linux and
gnu together are one heck of a difficult place for
a distribution to live. but
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it is a lot more dependable than any other package maintenance system I've
used on *NIX based systems. The fundamental problem requiring revdep is
it's not clear to me that this is
Indeed, Gnu/Linux is almost unique as an operating system in suffering
from an inconsistent base system which, without going into detail, is
at the very least a huge abuse of everyone's time.
and since plan 9 has a consistent back most of the rigmarole is not
necessary, but some is.
On 16 May 2010, at 16:21, EBo wrote:
As I said I was motivated by my portage experience not that I intend
to
reimplement portage, but even if I did attempt a reimplementation
the fact
that plan 9 is a much cleaner design, probably 3/4 of the junk is
simply
not needed. The question is how
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it's not clear to me that this is gentoo's fault. linux and
gnu together are one heck of a difficult place for
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:21 AM, EBo e...@sandien.com wrote:
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it is a lot more dependable than any other package maintenance system I've
used on *NIX based systems. The fundamental problem
On 16 May 2010, at 16:37, EBo wrote:
From personal experience with taking the backup approach, this works
fine
until you forget about it once, and it also results in a huge number
of
copies of the system/source laying around. This is less an issue in
this
day and age of cheap disks, but
On 16 May 2010, at 16:46, Jorden M wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:21 AM, EBo e...@sandien.com wrote:
portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
it is a lot more dependable than any other package maintenance
system I've
used
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis
eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Look here EBo, go help maintain a Linux distro for a couple of years and
THEN come back and tell us your package managers are wonderful swill. I
don't think you've even packaged up one piece of software. You can't
OK I double-checked and the 'install' script does indeed create
/installed/package-name.
So, if you have bound something onto /installed, or the directory
exists, you should be fine.
fgb has suggested improvements to my BUILD script, which I will put in
this week.
Any other suggestions are most
On 16 May 2010, at 17:02, ron minnich wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis
eeke...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Look here EBo, go help maintain a Linux distro for a couple of
years and
THEN come back and tell us your package managers are wonderful
swill. I
don't think you've
Look here EBo, go help maintain a Linux distro for a couple of years
and
THEN come back and tell us your package managers are wonderful swill.
I
don't think you've even packaged up one piece of software. You can't
have if
you're promoting package managers so much.
well let me see, I think I
Have you tried Sorcery from Source Mage?
No, but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks for the pointer.
I'd say that's Portage
without 3/4 of the junk, but it's still quite complex. I may be
talking out of my arse but I don't see anything inherent to plan 9
which would simplify a
Isn't everything great until you see the bad side of it?
Stay technical, guys.
I think some of the ideas behind portage are good, e.g. the ability to
handle patches and slim down software via USE flags.
this is only necessary if your purpose is to prune overgrown
packages. i hope will will solve this problem by not having
overgrown pacakges.
- erik
I think some of the ideas behind portage are good, e.g. the ability to
handle patches and slim down software via USE flags.
this is only necessary if your purpose is to prune overgrown
packages. i hope will will solve this problem by not having
overgrown pacakges.
I see a couple of other
On Sunday 16 May 2010 10:34:53 EBo wrote:
Have you tried Sorcery from Source Mage?
No, but I'll definitely look into it. Thanks for the pointer.
Might also want to check out paludis, a spiritual successor
to portage, built from scratch (written in c++), designed with
the focused goal of
On Sunday 16 May 2010 7:44:41 David du Colombier wrote:
Oh yeah - someone kindly hosted the current draft (v. 0.2) here:
http://mirror.9grid.fr/mirror.9grid.fr/plan9-cpu-auth-server-howto.html
Yes, it's me. I hosted it since your website disappeared.
Much appreciated - thank you!
May
Hello,
thanks Eric for your answer!
So if I understand right the rio(1) man page is slightly wrong. Not
only /dev/consctl has to be open but also /dev/mouse so that really
all characters be passed through. Is there any reason for this? Why
isn't it just the way the man page describes? (And
I see a couple of other applications for use flags besides pruning
overgrown packages -- such as should we install source and documentation
(yes by default on large systems, no on small embedded systems). Should we
strip binaries or compile things for debugging? Install examples? I do
not
i've tried to make this point several times before.
i think it is an error to envision what somebody
might want. build want you want. respond to
complaints. do not build stuff speculatively.
Thank you for your clarity. I was hoping to open a discussion and get
some feedback so when I do
On Sunday 16 May 2010 3:27:19 Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
I've tried various things, such as deleting partitions, reinstalling
windows and then reinstalling plan9... but I always seem to end up with
some residual stuff (e.g. the users I created the last time around are
still there...!)
I
it's always been sufficient for me to
cat /dev/zero /dev/sdC0 or whatever. Blowing away the first couple
hundred blocks seems to work fine.
It does go out of its way to try to reuse what partitions it thinks it
finds. but if it's all zeros there you are usually fine.
ron
well, can't boot from the hard drive (not bootable after all my fiddling,
apparently), and if i boot plan9 from the iso and user glenda, it tells me i
don't have the permissions to do it. and i don't seem to be able to do cons -l
/srv/fscons either (file does not exist...)
K
ron minnich
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm kfeuerh...@wlu.ca wrote:
well, can't boot from the hard drive (not bootable after all my fiddling,
apparently), and if i boot plan9 from the iso and user glenda, it tells me i
don't have the permissions to do it. and i don't seem to be
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
it's always been sufficient for me to
cat /dev/zero /dev/sdC0 or whatever. Blowing away the first couple
hundred blocks seems to work fine.
It does go out of its way to try to reuse what partitions it thinks it
finds.
yes, that's what i would have expected too!
K
ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com 05/16/10 7:09 PM
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm kfeuerh...@wlu.ca wrote:
well, can't boot from the hard drive (not bootable after all my fiddling,
apparently), and if i boot plan9 from the
ok, overriding the installation script and deliberately doing partdisk,
prepdisk, and fmtfossil (which warned me that the partition was already
properly formatted), seems to have done it, since i got to watch the system
copy all the files...
now, if i can only get the disc bootable again... i
This is highly annoying and time-consuming, especially when doing
repeated re-installs for whatever reasons.
i generally just zero out the disk until fossil faults then reboot.
i haven't seen any residual effects.
on the other hand, i never share the disk with linux.
- erik
On Sun May 16 20:32:50 EDT 2010, kfeuerh...@wlu.ca wrote:
ok, overriding the installation script and deliberately doing partdisk,
prepdisk, and fmtfossil (which warned me that the partition was already
properly formatted), seems to have done it, since i got to watch the system
copy all the
there is no 64 bit kernel.
Will there ever be? Or is that even an appropriate question?
i think it's a good question but lacking time travel or a working
64-bit kernel, this question is unknowable. :-)
please, no use flags. we can't test what we've got. use
flags make the problem go
I left these questions by Ron to be answered
collectively by fellow Plan 9 folks who would
try out his new package system.
But the conversation deteriorated into a
portage: pros and cons debate/seminar.
My input follows.
On 5/16/10, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
It actually works quite
i think it's a good question but lacking time travel or a working
64-bit kernel, this question is unknowable. :-)
;-) After thinking about it I think amd might have been a better example
please, no use flags. we can't test what we've got. use
flags make the problem go factorial.
On 5/16/10, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Between this package tool and mercurial for sources, I don't expect to
ever need to run replica again.
How do you plan to keep up with updates
to contrib repos people keep on sources?
Will the contrib - iso.bz2 conversion take
place on a nightly
On 5/16/10, Richard Miller 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
For me, those two factors alone make up for any disparity in
performance.
I use it with these limitations (though, as is mentioned above,
the former can be trivially changed) almost daily. But I have
an interface to a (remote) Ken FS server
and without use flags I end up having k*m packages instead of m. So the
question still comes to do I write it to allow 2^n^m possible combinations
and document the two most common scenarios, or write 2*m package variants
and leave it to the interested to populate any of the remaining 2^{k-2}
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Akshat Kumar
aku...@mail.nanosouffle.net wrote:
Is `rbind' a recursive bind, that takes care of binding at
all depths? Because that's what you'd need in order
for the binds to work. And then you shouldn't have any
problems.
Yes, aki wrote it and yes, I
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Akshat Kumar
aku...@mail.nanosouffle.net wrote:
On 5/16/10, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
Between this package tool and mercurial for sources, I don't expect to
ever need to run replica again.
How do you plan to keep up with updates
to contrib repos
i sure do miss aki. Can you try the rbind thing and see if I got
something wrong? Would be *very* nice to leave the files in the .iso
and just bind things.
i'm sure if you've followed the trials of the linux union
mount system on lwn, you can think of 10 potential reasons,
without trying.
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:19 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i'm sure if you've followed the trials of the linux union
mount system on lwn, you can think of 10 potential reasons,
without trying. recursive unions are hard.
ah, but I did over time. I'm not a big fan of the
49 matches
Mail list logo
