[9fans] mirror of sources of bell-labs

Hello 9fans, I added mirror page of sources of bell-labs. look http://p9.nyx.link/sources I am afraid the page has a problem with copyright or something else. if so, please inform me. I will remove them if necessary. Kenji Arisawa

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On 15 February 2016 at 15:30, erik quanstrom wrote: > > sadly among its other sins, the plan 9 webserver does use .httplogin but that's just an ordinary name; in fact, it's exactly that name that's hidden, nothing to do with .: httpd.c: * don't show the contents of

Re: [9fans] plan9.ini: ipconfig and bootargs

Hello Erik, On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:41:37AM -0800, erik quanstrom wrote: > On Sun Feb 14 08:30:20 PST 2016, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > > Hello, > > > > When trying to re-install a Plan9 on a new node, being unable, with the > > kernel compiled present on the CDROM image, to access a FAT or

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

leading dot is a Jedi mind trick that only works on the weak minded. "these aren't the files you' re looking for" On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:38 AM erik quanstrom wrote: > > My point was that under the circumstances we are stuck with people who > > DO use the leading dot

Re: [9fans] plan9.ini: ipconfig and bootargs

On Sun Feb 14 08:30:20 PST 2016, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > Hello, > > When trying to re-install a Plan9 on a new node, being unable, with the > kernel compiled present on the CDROM image, to access a FAT or an iso > image of a root file system, I went to a combination of a minimal sketch > of

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> My point was that under the circumstances we are stuck with people who > DO use the leading dot to make files disappear from directory listings > and they won't budge :-) what the intent of the leading dot might be is not recorded in the file system and one can ignore the convention as one

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> Yes, although that convention isn't in Plan 9, and it might be worthwhile > reconsidering how and why it is used. > If for configuration files, perhaps they should be stored elsewhere; if for > access control (eg, .htaccess), perhaps > groups would be better, with dynamic group membership

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On Mon Feb 15 07:08:06 PST 2016, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > Ah, my memory fails me, mostly due to too much time on Unipress machines in > > the 1980's. > > Rob's explanation for how the hidden files came about is out there in the > wild. I recall enjoying it. Probably one of Rob Pike's

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> Ah, my memory fails me, mostly due to too much time on Unipress machines in > the 1980's. Rob's explanation for how the hidden files came about is out there in the wild. I recall enjoying it. Probably one of Rob Pike's blog entries or somesuch on his own web site. Lucio.

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> Not in Plan 9. They do not disappear from directory listings in Plan 9 (or > even Plan 9 Port). > There isn't even a -a option, because all names are listed. I suppose you have a point in that exportfs is not likely to be used outside of a Plan 9 environment, but that is a little parochial,

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On 15 February 2016 at 12:44, wrote: > My point was that under the circumstances we are stuck with people who > DO use the leading dot to make files disappear from directory listings > and they won't budge :-) > Not in Plan 9. They do not disappear from directory listings

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> There is no "leading dot" convention in Plan 9. > That's in BSD-derived UNIX, and it's the result of an simplified hack in > ls, which was fixed in Seventh Edition. > If you can open it, it's obviously not "hidden": it's just inconvenient to > use with grep *. I was hoping to put that issue to

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On 15 February 2016 at 10:55, wrote: > > Charles, I think Kenji has a point and you are diverting the > discussion . > Not really: I'm trying to suggest possibilities for "what are you trying to achieve" (by hiding dot files, say), and then alternative mechanisms for that.

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

Ah, my memory fails me, mostly due to too much time on Unipress machines in the 1980's. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Charles Forsyth > wrote: > > >> On 15 February 2016 at 10:55, wrote: >> >> Whereas I agree that the

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On 15 February 2016 at 10:55, wrote: > > Whereas I agree that the leading-dot convention ought to be buried, in > reality (a) it is not going to just go away and (b) if it was so > readily accepted, it must have fulfilled a need. > There is no "leading dot" convention in

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

> Yes, although that convention isn't in Plan 9, and it might be > worthwhile reconsidering how and why it is used. If for configuration > files, perhaps they should be stored elsewhere; if for access control > (eg, .htaccess), perhaps groups would be better, with dynamic group > membership

Re: [9fans] bug in exportfs

On 15 February 2016 at 01:05, arisawa wrote: > for example, assume we want to exclude all files of name that begins with > “.”, > then it is probably difficult to do so using only nsfile. > Yes, although that convention isn't in Plan 9, and it might be worthwhile